/lit/ - Literature

>>15332050
He's jewish, theres nothing to understand more than to destroy what is beautiful and ruin european civilizations

>>15332070
Although he explains that he would change nothing about the way things already were by doing this, simply that it would cease to be hypocritical and discrete, and move into the public sphere. No longer would the elite make one another into cuckolds, but that people simply would have no need for monogamy.

Maybe Aldous Huxley was right and that's a shit idea.

The nuclear family doesn't work, two parents will usually pass on their psychosis to their children

>>15332092
How does making it so that no one has a true family resolve that? Now you have 4 inputs of psychosis into one child, same shit.

>>15332092
>The nuclear family doesn't work, two parents will usually pass on their psychosis to their children
What the fuck are you talking about? This is why people hate you leftist wankers.

>ITT a bunch of incoming misguided reads on the "bourgeois nuclear family" as an (((arbitrary social construct))) which justify etc etc

>>15332100
What do you consider a true family? Why is the nuclear family the only family you consider valid?
>>15332161
The WASP nuclear family breeds autism, mental illness, and delusional narcissism. A much better model would be a broader communal family, instead of having two possibly psychotic individuals free to indoctrinate the child and shelter them from reality.

>>15332178
>family structure breeds autism
uh, no, breeding breeds autism.
>>15332169
so is he against the actual nuclear family or a bourgeois perversion of it?

>>15332178
It's not the only valid family, but to say that it's entirely invalid is definitely absurd.

>>15332050
>he read the manifesto

Are you a worker in late 1800s germany, anon? No? Are you a theorist wanting to study the conclusions socialists drew about that situation and what they thought the immediate issues and considerations to advance the cause under those circumstances were? No?
Then why are you reading that?
You surely dont think that the short term objectives in the overall approach of bringing about a proletarian dictatorship under those conditions is somehow a bullet point list of 'what communism is', right? Surely!

>>15332195
It's not absurd, I'm not saying that your mother and father cease to be your mother and father, but the idea of an individual family units living in isolation is wrong. Having a larger extended communal family is more humane for the child as they'll grow up more socially balanced and experienced, rather than their parents forcing a worldview on the child and creating a sense of separation from other people.

>>15332239
But I question if that's what's being advocated when discussing the "community of women" and the thing about public prostitution vs private. A communal family is usually healthier, yes, but this sounds like saying to abandon the entire structure of monogamy and family units. Leave women to be with any and every man they so please, and everyone raise everyone together.

>>15332188
>so is he against the actual nuclear family or a bourgeois perversion of it?
This. The idea that communists want to "destroy the family" is kind of ridiculous. The last Marxist book I read actually had some implicit defenses of the family in it.

>>15332247
I don't think monogamy should be the only valid choice, for a lot of people it obviously doesn't work. I'm personally not for abolishing it, but it's a very personal devotion and commitment. I don't anyone is entitled to a monogamous relationship, and the majority of relationships aren't monogamous anyways

>>15332239

This is something you've projected onto the nuclear family.

>>15332253

It isn't ridiculous at all. The irony is that while Marxists will complain of misreading Marx, historical praxis has resulted in communal farms and inefficiency. The nuclear family is bad? At the other extreme (oh wait, nuclear families aren't even an extreme) are the Google developer cuck-pods. They tried this shit when I was in college: "oh, just leave your door open, let's have a community!" No, fuck off. Privacy has intrinsic, subjective value. And if I believed in god, I would thank him that I grew up as the only child of a mother and a father. A holy family, don't you know.

I can think of no worse hell than being made to live with other people against their will. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy (butterfly).

> It isn't ridiculous at all. The irony is that while Marxists will complain of misreading Marx, historical praxis has resulted in communal farms and inefficiency. The nuclear family is bad? At the other extreme (oh wait, nuclear families aren't even an extreme) are the Google developer cuck-pods. They tried this shit when I was in college: "oh, just leave your door open, let's have a community!" No, fuck off. Privacy has intrinsic, subjective value. And if I believed in god, I would thank him that I grew up as the only child of a mother and a father. A holy family, don't you know.
Fair to be suspicious because of the historical praxis, but I'm just pointing out that leftism isn't inherently oppositional to family. I would point to examples like Cuba where a strong family life is common to the culture despite nearly 70 years of socialism.

>>15332318

Your defense is itself false. They try the anti-family shit all the time. Fuck the fuck off.

>>15332050
I wish the concept of family was finally destroyed.

>>15332309
It's not too many people I've known are from dysfunctional nuclear families, it's extremely common especially among white Americans. It's the reason why angsty imbalanced young males are larping as fascists and identifying with a larger "white" identity, it's ultimately a longing for a sense of community that the nuclear family and capitalism has eroded. In the end the children are the victims of their own parents neurosis, no child should have to carry that type of baggage.

>>15332215
"at present it is undoubtedly the most widespread, the most international production of all Socialist literature, the common platform acknowledged by millions of working men from Siberia to California."
reading is good anon, don't be so close-minded :)

>>15332322
Alright, you grumpy fuck. I'm sorry someone said some bullshit to you in college and you never moved on. Why don't you cry some more.

>>15332330
This is a failure of consumerism and capitalism, not of the structure itself, which has existed long before late-stage capitalism and been fine.

>>15332342
>>15332330

0/2, you're batting zero for accurate diagnoses, both of you. It really is the niggers.

>>15332362
not the same anon

>>15332050
You got it wrong. Demolishing the family unit is the end goal, and the verbiage about 'proletarian advancement' is just there to make the bitter pill easier to swallow.

As to why they want to destroy the family unit: because they're gnostics, and that has been part of the gnostic creed since forever. (Along with trannies, homos, antinatalism, 'I fucking love science', etc.)

The Communist manifesto is so embarrassing, Marx bootlickers try their hardest to hide it and tell you to read Capital instead.

>>15332369
As far as short political texts, its not bad. There are far worse.

>>15332366
Could you elaborate?
Please avoid just saying muh jews, I'm curious about the actual ideology and gain to be had from promoting these things.

>>15332366
The individual family unit is dysfunctional, the goal is to free children from the neurosis of the enclosed nuclear family. Children are not vessels for their own parents mental illnesses and ideologies

>>15332050
Marx had genetic skin condition hinting at high mutational load. Since 85% of our genes have some effects on our nervous systems, you can be sure that his brain was highly mutated and spouting typical mutant thoughts, which reduced evolutionary fitness of everyone that followed his lead. There's a reason gnostics were raving mad lunatics, Marx is just modern equivalent of them.

>>15332406
>There's a reason gnostics were raving mad lunatics
Christians burned everything that said otherwise

>>15332392
>neurosis of the enclosed nuclear family
Hello Freud, have any empirical evidence to back your bullshit up or are you going to keep pretending that a boy traumatised by witnessing accident of a horse-drawn cart is scared of horses because horses have big dick, while ignoring the trauma?

>>15332325
Ok jew

>>15332384
Gnosticism is not an ideology. It is a religion founded on the idea that the material world is expressly evil and needs to be destroyed through the application of proper ideology. Obviously family is a target, since family is one of the strongest forces binding us to this world.

>>15332392
Seek help.

>>15332412
Nice strawman, but irrelevant to my points.

>>15332419
you're gay

>>15332422
Material world as in worldly, or reality?
Thanks for the genuine response.

>>15332366
>Demolishing the family unit is the end goal, and the verbiage about 'proletarian advancement' is just there to make the bitter pill easier to swallow.
Whose goal is this? Let's say I am a communist, do you think that in my mind I'm thinking "heh heh time to destroy family"? Like how do you think that works?

>>15332422
Someone who clearly has no idea what he's arguing against.

>>15332437
I want to destroy the false family unit, and allow real organic families to be formed

>>15332392
>The individual family unit is dysfunctional, the goal is to free children from the neurosis of the enclosed nuclear family.
you are retarded and evil, but luckily also completely impotent

>>15332178
>The WASP nuclear family breeds autism, mental illness, and delusional narcissism. A much better model would be a broader communal family, instead of having two possibly psychotic individuals free to indoctrinate the child and shelter them from reality.

I agree, regression to sub-saharan africa tier communal parenting by way of reddit polycu(ck)les are the way to go.

>>15332448
>ur evil wah
Grow up, also have you ever contemplated that maybe you're actually the evil one?

>>15332410
One of the inherent conclusions of gnosticism is antinatalism. Now this should have been something that healthy people(with low mutational load) are predisposed to disagree with, even on irrational grounds, simply the natalist genes are what gets passed onward and thus it's a kind of genetic ideology of ours to want to breed. People who create a thought system that allows for antinatalist ideas to flourish, must therefore have some parts of this "genetic ideology" eroded, which could happen through accumulation of mutations. It's not particularly weird that gnosticism erupted in popularity right at the end of the reign of Marcus, as that's where you'd expect would be the last point in which Romans were safe and wealthy enough to keep amassing mutational load, ever since there was a slow decline that must have quite abruptly selected gnostic mutants out of the genepool.

>>15332424
You're coming out of the way of thought opened by psychoanalysis, and psychoanalysis doesn't have particularly good track record when confronted with clinical studies or just plain and simple empirical evidence. Why would you believe the claim that families cause neurosis is correct when that's the case?

>>15332309
We should do what the French aristocracy did and send our babies off strapped to horses, to be raised by wetnurses in the countryside.

>>15332444
>real organic families t
and what is that exactly

>>15332450
Western civilization is dead and that's a good thing

>>15332452
no youre a disgusting piece of shit

>>15332461
An opportunity for the child to have autonomy, and a broader relationship to the world

>>15332461
A family in which white mother and father raises black babies while jewish mothers and fathers raise jewish babies. White babies are thrown into meat grinder and turned into onions green.

>>15332464
Projection

>>15332469
and then jewish daddies fuck the babies in the ass and coom

>>15332467
Children don't have autonomy, they need their parents to tell them what to do.

>>15332469
Might is right after all

>>15332471
Says the fucking creep who wants to take children away from their parents

>>15332473
Children learn life experience from their community and nature, parent's shouldn't have a monopoly on their children's development

>>15332366
Nag hammadi expert over here

>>15332483
That requires pretty tight-knit community then, well I guess you too are an ethnonationalist.

>>15332479
So you think that parents can't be creeps? At least before modernity people were part of extended families, were part of a larger communal ecosystem, things just got worse as the family unit became more and more atomized

>>15332493
tight knit communities yes, ethno-nationalist nah I'm an anarchist

>>15332499
you can still have an extended family and community, people do. Stop trying to take children away from their families you weirdo

>>15332509
>Stop trying to take children away from their families you weirdo
Stop projecting your own pathology on me

>>15332520
Oh so you arent doing that, nevermind we're fine then. As long as you really arent trying to take them away from their parents.

>>15332504
Since people are naturally inclined to get on extremely well with people in genetic proximity to them, tight-knit communities inherently imply ethnocentrism/ethnonationalism.

As for anarchism I have not much to say apart from the fact that it won't last a generation because of the iron law of oligarchy.

>>15332526
Children aren't property of their parents or other adults, they're a part of a community and social eco system. The child has no obligation to be morphed into their parents image and expectations.

>>15332542
They are cared for first and foremost by their parents, who are responsible for them. Kill yourself you fucking freak

>>15332541
Some people are racist, but most people aren't. What binds people is more or less linguistic, cultural, and spiritual. The ethnicity is a by product of cultural collaboration and genetic sharing.

>>15332549
Parents don't care for their children in a vacuum, we're all part of a larger society but we've forgotten that. Nuclear families also put too much stress on husband and wife, as if they're meant to be solely responsible for their child's development and identity which rarely ever works out.

>>15332568
a lot ethnicity was actually the product of violent genocide and rape, which is the usual form of 'genetic sharing'. You frequently see entire Y chromosome lineages just extinguished

>>15332580
The past is unimportant, the only thing that matters is the future. Many people have been the product of rape, but they forge their identity in this world regardless.

>>15332568
>Some people are racist, but most people aren't.
No anon. We're all racist, we're evolved to be such, as a mechanism of group-selection. Imagine a single gene, what kind of group would more reliably transfer it further - a group which is tight knit from genetic standpoint and shuns outsiders, or a group that isn't? Game theory wise it would be much easier in a group with strong in-group preference. Now imagine a bundle of genes, all of which have some influence on how our minds operate(not 100% but significant), it is obvious that those bundles that promote ethnocentric behaviour will transmit itself more reliably, especially in conditions of stratified darwinian selection, where the male parts of the elite may get many wives and the non-elites often get nothing(because not enough women are being born) - then, an elite-change can wipe off entire gene unless it's being part of the genotype of the whole group, that is, if it's genetically homogeneous(but not to the degree which would cause inbreeding depression).

>>15332588
We're evolved to have in group preferences and even this varies from individual to individual, that doesn't explicitly involve "race" either. People who think in terms of race are usually sheltered and think all other white people are essentially just like them, but this hasn't been the case historically.

>>15332602
I don't think I've mentioned race in any of my posts, because it's relatively irrelevant to the topic(as the conditions in which we evolved rarely saw us interacting with different races). Now as for your idea that white people are somehow very heterogeneous(arguably true), so what? So are blacks(compare Bantu to Khoisan) and other races, but who's closer to a Chinese? Burmese or Ethiopian? Which one is more likely to end up being treated as part of in-group of Chinese people? Obviously Burmese. It's not a difficult concept to understand - not all East Asian people are the same, but they're more closely related to each other than they are to East Africans. As such, I don't really "get", what are the implications you're trying to make there.

>>15332178
>The WASP nuclear family breeds autism, mental illness, and delusional narcissism. A much better model would be a broader communal family, instead of having two possibly psychotic individuals free to indoctrinate the child and shelter them from reality.
What the fuck are you talking about? This is why no one likes you leftist wankers.

>>15332050
I haven't read Marx, but isn't this the same idea promoted by Plato? I've always thought it was extremely naive and idealistic.

Good luck convincing men to give up their monopoly on their women, especially the elites who are used to (legitimately or otherwise) having access to multiple women with exclusive rights. Besides, even if you could somehow convince men to adopt this system, how will you realistically keep it working when people start becoming possessive?

To the left-wing liars in this thread: Why do you deny that Marxism seeks the destruction of the family, when one of its core texts, Engels' On the Origin of the Family, argues that all family structures are themselves the result of class society and will necessarily wither away with the elimination of class society? Why do you deny this when, during the October Revolution, there were concerted attempts to forcibly bring about the dissolution of family structures by creating communes in which sex would be freely had and none would ask who was whose parent?
Further, why do you make these bizarre claims about "ideologies" and "neuroses" when it is plain as day that children raised within a family composed of either their biological parents, or a family composed of their biological parents as well as other blood relatives, perform better than every single other form of social unit? Why do you claim that parents should not have exclusive rights over their children, when it has been shown that parental investment in our species is directly connected to actually being someone's offspring?
Why do you lie?

>>15332648
The real problem is that men are uninterested in taking care of other men's children. Parental investment will drop to zero and children will be neglected by everyone.

>>15332645
Yet all of those guys were by products of failed nuclear families and late stage capitalism.

>>15332699
>The real problem is that men are uninterested in taking care of other men's children
This is nonsense, even in more traditional societies you would have male priests, guru's, and mentors who would help a young man develop and grow. Also women are the ones who take care of children, and they have a maternal instinct that goes beyond just their own children

>>15332763
>This is nonsense, even in more traditional societies you would have male priests, guru's, and mentors who would help a young man develop and grow.
They might help a child develop, but they are not responsible for feeding, clothing, and protecting him. That responsibility lies with the parents.
>Also women are the ones who take care of children, and they have a maternal instinct that goes beyond just their own children
Why do you believe that? Do you think in a hunter-gatherer society, men aren't making sure to hunt and bring back enough food for their own children?

>>15332050
>1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
>2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
>3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
>4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
>5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
>6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
>7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
>8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
>9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
>10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

why does everyone miss the part were he says "btw give all power to the state" its sort of the entire point of communism and always has been. It's 1850's nostalgia for feudalism. He starts out the book fawning over rome and the middle ages

>>15332763
>you would have male priests, guru's, and mentors who would help a young man "develop" and "grow"
I know the kind of 'growth' you mean. Yikes!

> they have a maternal instinct
Double yikes!

>>15332795
>> they have a maternal instinct
Double yikes!

Women in general have a maternal instinct, yes.

>>15332780
We don't live in a hunter gatherer paradigm

>>15332050
Marx was literally nothing more than an edgelord contrarian.

>>15332819
>We don't live in a hunter gatherer paradigm
Irrelevant.
>Women in general have a maternal instinct, yes.
It does not extend beyond their own blood relatives. I doubt you've ever been in a vulnerable position, or you would be painfully aware of the fact that people care very little for those outside of their own immediate families.

>>15332829
So adopted children never get nurtured by their adopted mothers? This is a cultural problem, not a biological one

>>15332850
>So adopted children never get nurtured by their adopted mothers?
Do you not see the difference between a voluntarily assumed responsibility for one, maybe two individuals, and a general maternal instinct that supposedly spurs mothers on to care for the children of all and sundry?
Also, yes. Women and men put greater effort into caring for their own offspring than they do for those of others.
>This is a cultural problem, not a biological one
No. The phenomenon of which we speak is universal. It is written into our DNA, and will never go away. And indeed there is no reason why it should.

>>15332699
That is one problem, but far from the only one. Besides the ones we already mentioned, there is the potential for another big one.
If the communal women are allowed to choose which men then have sex with, they will naturally choose to do so with the most attractive ones, because the children are raised communally and thus parental investment is not a factor. This will (much like modern dating) leave large numbers of males with no access to females. These men will consequently have very little incentive to support the system that neglects them so.

>>15332900
>These men will consequently have very little incentive to support the system that neglects them so.
And a great deal of incentive to become violent.

>>15332900
Nonsense, women have sex with ugly men all the time. If you spend time with a women, you'll probably have sex eventually because women get horny just like men. You're entire ideology is built around a neurotic need to keep women in line.

>>15332925
Why are you lying, and what makes you think that being thrown a few scraps once a year is sufficient compensation for being generally scorned and being forced to take care of children that are not yours?

>>15332755
Just like you are, yet here you are advocating for polygamy, just waiting to get your hands on a baby to pound to death, you sick pinko shit.

>>15332962
>just waiting to get your hands on a baby to pound to death
lolwut

>>15332952
You'll probably have more sex and be more socialized in my paradigm

>>15332925
>Nonsense, women have sex with ugly men all the time. If you spend time with a women, you'll probably have sex eventually because women get horny just like men.
Yes women get horny, but not for the weak, the shy or the ugly. I'm talking about unrestrained female sexuality. Expecting women to have sex with lower-quality men when they have alternatives is like expecting men to be monogamous when they can have a harem.

>You're entire ideology is built around a neurotic need to keep women in line.
What ideology?

>>15332993
You'll probably have more sex and be more socialized in my paradigm

>>15332962
total projection again
Why are all the le epic and based trad types always the most fucked up and degenerate people you meet. Yeah, you have the odd group of freaks on the left like those freaks who killed that baby you have a saved image of (wonder why) , but almost every right wing figure online ends up being revealed as a sex pest, homosexual, literal prostitute, pedo, racemixer, etc etc etc. everything they claim to rail against

>>15333009
99,9% of all leftists are degenerates who beat up little kids and are in favor of pedophilia and muslims.

>>15332990
>>15333003
1. I'm in a loving long-term relationship and will be married within the next few years.
2. That's not an argument.
3. Such a paradigm is already coming into existence, and it has resulted in everyone besides a small aristocracy of men having less sex, not more.
4. The amount of sex people have cannot by itself serve as a criterion of the rectitude and/or functionality of a system.
5. The reason why monogamy arose in our common ancestor Ardipithecus more than a million years ago is that it allows for greater average levels of sex among men, improves fertility, produces greater certitude of paternity, and improves the fitness of offspring. There is literally no evidence anywhere that the mating system that people like you seek to create will benefit our species in either the short or the long run.

>>15332092
This be the verse.

>>15333017
Why do you save images of baby killers, do you get off on that sort of thing or something you fucking sicko??

>>15333009
> the (((media))) told me right-wing thinkers are monsters, how sick, amirite?
Next up: Jewish opinions of Jesus Christ.

>>15333026
To point out to every leftist what disgusting sacks of shit they are, obviously.

The Marxist’s actual function in relation to production is not to fight Capitalism (Capitalism is doing just fine), but to destroy all rival systems of value, such as religion, nation, family, etc.
Because of false consciousness, from which the Marxist is not exempt, the Marxist believes that he is engaged in a heroic struggle against the elites, but he never contests the elites in any way, choosing instead to spend time attacking Capitalism’s enemies on a Mongolian sheep raising forum, while trying very hard not to notice that the presence of him and his comrades makes any given real or digital property *more* desirable for advertisers, investors, etc.

>>15332322
"no you are wrong because I said so, they said things to me in college that I did not like at all, everyone does that"

>>15333093
This is possibly the worst take I’ve ever read

>>15333240
Nice argument. Where’s the lie? Whether in the East or the West, it seems to me that what the Revolution ultimately accomplished was the liberation of the bourgeoisie from historical restraints, and even more ruthlessly efficient, exploitative forms of Capitalism. This also seems to describe today’s Marxist quite well.

>>15332050
This thread is fucking shit, holy fuck I hate /nu/ lit, every argument descends into "you are a babykiller" or "you are a sex pest", fucking horrible.

>>15332392
>Children are not vessels for their own parents mental illnesses and ideologies
>decides to make children a vessel for an even more retarded state ideology

>>15332422
>Gnosticism is not an ideology. It is a religion founded on the idea that the material world is expressly evil and needs to be destroyed through the application of proper ideology. Obviously family is a target, since family is one of the strongest forces binding us to this world.

>>15333341
I agree, its dreadful

>>15332092
Based anti-oedipist

>>15332366
THIS.
people in this thread should read voegelin

>>15332050
Read Engels the origin of family, private property and the State. It's all about returning to the primitive Gens. But you'll have to read the book. So i don't think you'll ever understand, and like many in this thread, will only scratch the surface of things, misunderstanding them.

So the goal is to have a tribal family structure in an entirely post tribal world where technology is largely making "family" and social experiences increasing nom essential?

>>15333093
Gonna go ahead and declare victory over Marx with this.
Now that that’s settled, maybe we can go back to talking about books.

>>15334029
Technology has less influence on society than class based social relationships and division of labor. You don't know how would the family organize in a classless society. Probably not the nuclear family. More like something more extended.

>>15334170
Why would they? A global classless world would mean a globally constantly moving population. Why would people stay put at all?

>The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour.
They were angry about proletarians not being able to have families, like the bourgeiose.

>>How would creating a "community of women" do anything but make the proletarian class easier to manipulate?
>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.
>For the rest, it is selfevident 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
That was an accusation against Communists, that they want to make women common property. They retorted by saying that bourgeiose already make proletarian women their property via prostitution and workplace pressure. Their actual goal was to emancipate 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.

>>15334170
(...)In a class based society, the uncle and cousins are literally in competition, even a friendly competition, in order to know who will get the better job, who will get the better university degree. In a classless society, cousins and brother won't give a shit who have the better job, since in superior communism, division of labor would have disappeared. So families would have more natural incentive to cooperate and help each other, instead of play the competition game.

>>15334185
Not necessarily. why would you move around constantly? You can stay put somewhere with your family. The vision of superior communism is to have a federation of small towns. Not megacities, which is mostly a result of Capitalism, civilization and exchange value.

>>15334242
There would probably be not as many restrictions and money is now not an issue. Why would I not want to see the world? Or is the world so boring in this hypothetical small town commie world that Ill just want to stay home with my family anyway

>>15332755
>leftists are unwitting tools of the capitalist system they complain about
wow, groundbreaking shit right here

>>15332092
Anybody who thinks that the family can be tossed away permanently is a retard. Too bad d&g came to this conclusion referring to fraudulent antropological sources, because they had a lot if interesting things to say

>>15333093
>but he never contests the elites in any way
Imagine being such a mutt...

>>15332366
Kekk this is political schizophrenia

>>15334445
> licks the boot of a regime that speed ran feudal Russia through industrialism to neo-capitalism at gunpoint.
> n-n-no you are the tool of the elites

>>15332092
>The nuclear family doesn't work
Based, the nuclear family is far too small, a healthy family unit contains at least 3 generations. The nuclear family was a step towards the terrible modern dissolution of the family.

>>15332178
>family breeds autism
But enough about your family—this is just a bunch of anecdotes

>>15334493
And Hitler created Israel...Now go be retarded somewhere else.

>>15333986
Why don't more people realize that Communism is the ultimate reactionary ideology?
>Return to the Gens as a mode of familial organization
>Return to pre-capitalist production for use via a palace economy with direct command of labor via the Party hierarchy
>Return to pre-monetary relations
>Return to pre-monotheism

>>15334519
Doesn’t Zizek believe this?
Anyway, it’s basic historical materialism that people’s sincere beliefs about their intentions are betrayed by the material outcomes they produce. I’d be interested in knowing why you would think yourself and your comrades exempt from this, given the trajectory of the Revolution to date.

>>15332092
That’s why people should live with their larger family, which includes their grandparents and cousins.

>>15332050
Communism can’t work if people have loyalties to anything other than the collective.
Granted, communism doesn’t work at all because of human nature, but if you even want to give it a shot you would have to destroy the family unit so that people don’t accumulate resources for themselves

>>15334691
I like this idea. My cousins on both sides are normal and cool. My family is all the freaks. Cousins could’ve helped us out if we were all together more often.

>>15332092
>muh extended family
Meme that only causes even more problems. Competiton between subfamilies ensues even more psychosis.
>t. extended family

>>15334668
While you’re at it you could probably explain to me why so much of the energy of Marxists on this board is spent arguing against “superstructural” phenomena like Christianity, the family, national loyalties and historical self-understandings, and “fascism” (as if it weren’t a pathetic, spent force) instead of, you know, bankers, landlords, owners and so on?
I’m not saying you don’t really believe you are against the bourgeoisie, I just think my thesis explains the data of Marxism as it actually exists better than yours.

>>15334668
Simply because "my comrades" were the only ones capable of making substantial push against capital and are the only ones still pushing against it along with Islamists.

>Anyway, it’s basic historical materialism that people’s sincere beliefs about their intentions are betrayed by the material outcomes they produce.
Now that´s just fatalism, going down that road everyone is the same and we might as well abandon all hopes and embrace capital.

Anyway the point was about "contesting the elites of capitalism" and the bolsheviks contested them harder than anyone else.

>>15332050
That, and the fact that Marxism advocates for proletarian internationalism are simple reasons that explains why Marxist will never be.

It's idiotic to think that workers from Germany will ever accept to unify with workers from Brazil, or Thailand, nationalism is a natural phenomenon of the human nature.

>>15334874
The bolsheviks killed a lot of czarists, patriots, Ukrainians, kulaks, peasants, priests, and other socialists while they created the economic base for neo-capitalism. That’s what actually happened.

On a seperate note (not OP here), I have an essay due tomorrow on whether Lenin's 'dictatorship of the proletariat' differs little in character from the capitalist states that he criticised. Any useful literature to argue against this claim? I think Zizek has some stuff but I want more

>>15334861
>on this board
First you are wrong, most Marxist threads are about landlords, bankers, bussinesman and economy in general. Second most people on this board are Americans and as such obsessed with such issues by their very nature. But more importantly vast majority of Marxists IRK are Chinese, Indian, Korean, Russian etc.; Marxism has little power amongst westerners.

>instead of, you know, bankers, landlords, owners and so on
That´s what communists in Nepal, Cuba, Russia, Greece or Venezuela are doing.

>>15334933
By "economic base for capitalism" you mean what? Industry? Russia couldn´t have survived 20th century without industry, so that´s a pointless argument. Neither did the communist economy translate well into capitalism; hence a large portion of economy was retained by the state.

>>15335061
Incorrect. They are assembling the economic base for neo-capitalism and fulfilling their role in relation to production by clearing out all rival sources of value.
My theory (that socialism is the stage before neo-capitalism) has much more historical material evidence than the null (that capitalism is a stage before socialism).

>>15332050
He used a dumbed-down, over simplified model of society to create over-simplified "solutions" which, while I am sure that he meant well, just make things worse.
I am not trolling when I say that Marx' main prob was that he had never had to work for a living. He had no real, visceral feeling for the way working people think and feel. He was an outsider, looking in, with little thought-projections inside his head about what they must be feeling. We all go throughthis as kids watching adults at work, but we never really UNDERSTAND until we, too, experience what it is to work with others, whether that labour be mental or physical. Marx never learned that, never gained that aspect of mature experience. Thus a certain inherent childishness in Marxism, and its adherents. It's wrong, it's not like they think it should be, so it is reality that is incorrect, not their thoughts.

>>15335125
>Incorrect. They are assembling the economic base for neo-capitalism and fulfilling their role in relation to production by clearing out all rival sources of value.
Where´s the evidence? And what does that even mean?

>My theory (that socialism is the stage before neo-capitalism) has much more historical material evidence than the null (that capitalism is a stage before socialism).
Doesn´t make sense, because you don´t need socialism at all. If you assume that capitalism is the vector material forces are driving us to, then socialism is a side-step, not a "stage".

>>15335190
For economically developed countries that already have a developed economic base through prime mover advantage, all that is required is the destruction of sources of value that would interfere with capital (example is the West). In these cases, yes, socialism is something like a speed bump.
For other states that begin with pre-modern modes of production (Russia, China, East Asia, and ongoing in South America) socialism is very much the intermediary stage, where a centralized government liquidates formerly existing modes of production and suppresses competing sources of value and rapidly builds an economic base, which then transitions into a neo-capitalist ownership model out of crisis or other necessity.

>>15332755
Isn't that a nice position to have on everything
>Make proposition
>Try that proposition
>Fail
>It's the fault of the historical, social, economical and political context

In fact it's not the first time I see this

>Cuba and North Korea are shitholes
>Clearly the fault of capitalists isolating the countries
>Iran was a socialist paradise
>CIA fucked it up
>Holodmodor happened
>No it did not, in the scale they said it did and was the result of bad crops
>Checas in the Spanish civil war
>They got it coming and have been blown out of proportion anyway

With that dialectical strategy I can also have my own wacko theories too

>The holocaust never happened and if it did was never at the degree claimed and probably was the result of Germany being isolated and at war in two fronts without many means to give logistical support to all the civilian population

I just love tankies

>>15335275
>where a centralized government liquidates formerly existing modes of production and suppresses competing sources of value and rapidly builds an economic base
So in the words of normies, they "modernize" their countries. But then again, just a sidestep; for communist Russia there was capitalistic japan; for capitalistic south Korea there was communistic North Korea; for communistic Vietnam there was capitalist Thailand. Socialism as an intermediary stage is not necessary. On the contrary, it´s either just as good or more likely it slows down the process of integrating a country into part of global, US-owned, market. Only China won the economic race against India (even though India only had half-assed capitalism). Then there´s the elephant in the room: What is the alternative? Stay weak and poor?

>which then transitions
Still waiting for North Korea, Cuba or Venezuela to do so. The last example of transition was Bolivia, where the transition was done through US-coup, like is common for South American states, that don´t follow your logic at all.

>>15332791
The issue is you're confusing what he means by state. He says very specifically that they cannot simply assume control of the "ready-made" state apparatus. That would simply become, again, the oppressor and the oppressed, with different characters. This "state" is an entire reconstruction of the state and society as a whole. Don't be fucking stupid.

>>15333986
OP here, thanks, I was going to read the Principles of Communism next actually, and then place an order for Origin of the Family....
Anything I should be aware of to make sure I don't grossly misunderstand?

>>15332322
That isn’t a refutation dude?

>>15335582
You can call it modernization if you want, it is a transition to a mixed-market economy and the sublimation of all value into exchange value (similar to what Deleuze calls deterritorialization). This would naturally happen in US client states like the ones you mentioned.
As far as I am aware, a transition by coup is still a transition by necessity. Remember that the theory here is that capitalism is irresistible, to such an extent that Marxists, owing to false consciousness, are actually part of the development of the capitalist mode, and socialist states are not steady states, but a transitional ones. I would not bank on Cuba, NK, or Venezuela remaining socialist — Cuba has already begun introducing market reforms and Venezuela is starting to crack.
It is important to note that this is a positive, not a normative analysis. I’m not saying socialist countries should become capitalist, but that they are going to; I’m saying that historical materialism was correct in its negations, but misunderstood its own role in the process.

>>15332050
Marx literally had a wife and five kids retard. If you actually read him you’ll realize he’s not talking about the family structure per se but the bourgeoisie family that primarily acts as a means to transfer property and capital.

>>15335761
Note that by irresistible I mean solely by means of revolutionary gnosis. It is totally possible that neo-capitalism will eventually enter a crisis from which it cannot recover, and will give way to something else, but it isn’t going to happen as Marx laid it out.

>>15335761
>it is a transition to a mixed-market economy and the sublimation of all value into exchange value
That happens after transition to capitalism. Not during socialism itself. What happens under socialism is optimization of society to industrial production.

>As far as I am aware, a transition by coup is still a transition by necessity.
No, it´s transition by outside force.
>Remember that the theory here is that capitalism is irresistible
OK, that´s materialism taken to it´s fatalistic conclusion.
>are actually part of the development of the capitalist mode
And this part is wrong, if we assume your fatalistic position. They are "fighting the inevitable", until entropy gives them their very own MacDonald.
>It is important to note that this is a positive, not a normative analysis.
And as Marx, it largely omits geopolitical developments. Capitalism was steamrolling any and all opposition since the 1990s, but that was namely due to defeat of SSSR and uncontested rule of US. However this development went through inflexion two decades after and now US is contested by China and it doesn´t look too well for burgers. As US will lose power, so will global capitalism.

>>15334432
Care to expand more on that? Which fraudulent sources did they based their works on?

>>15335978
>What happens under socialism is optimization of society to industrial production.
Which means, in practice, destroying all rival sources of value to capitalism, essentially preparing for it to reach its purified and ulterior nature, which I have said is Marxism’s main function in relation to production.
> OK, that´s materialism taken to it´s fatalistic conclusion.
Exactly. The Revolution is a form of false consciousness — a dream to pacify you from the reality of your situation.
> However this development went through inflexion two decades after and now US is contested by China and it doesn´t look too well for burgers. As US will lose power, so will global capitalism.
If you think rising China means decline for capitalism, you’re not seeing things clearly.

I also said, and you might have missed, that capitalism is not invincible — just that it cannot be “overthrown” as Marx believed, since overthrowing is part of its internal logic.

>>15335811
Marx also wasn't a worker, clearly his life wasn't 100% praxis.

>>15336094
>Which means, in practice, destroying all rival sources of value to capitalism, essentially preparing for it to reach its purified and ulterior nature
Which in practice means "not ending up as a colony". There´s still plenty of non-capitalistic value left.
>a dream to pacify you from
It literally does the opposite. It wakes up people and mobilizes them into fighting.
>you’re not seeing things clearly.
Oh, I do see things clearly. US is capitalism and capitalism is US, if it dies capitalism will enter even harder decline than socialism after Berlin wall fell.

>also said, and you might have missed, that capitalism is not invincible
No, I haven´t missed it, I just assumed it´s irrelevant, because you implied that such thing is only possible in very distant future and can´t be imagined from our perspective. Was I wrong?

>>15332290
>and the majority of relationships aren't monogamous anyways
Only if you count muslim nations and what not and those are even more rigid and in favour of the patriach. Most egalitarian societies and communities that existed during history were very monogamous actually.
Even most modern attempts at creating socialist communes like the kibbutz who created kid houses and dissolve family units and "liberate" women from domestic work saw itself undoing all of that right after their 1st generation of women is born and they all want to raise their kids and not get them snatched into a kid house.

>greatest indicator of mental and bodily health
>reeeeee it's evil goyim you must have every medical condition in the dsm-v like us and more attack vectors like extended family you barely know
The greatest way of identifying shysters of any kind is their opposition to the nuclear family.

>>15336267
>more attack vectors like extended family you barely know
Daquq does that mean? And why are you calling your granny an "attack vector", that´s not nice, you know.

>>15332366
Gnosticism has nothing to do with Marxism, you retard, stop reading that hack Voegelin

>>15332453
hahaha keep trapping divine particles of light into this meat grinder because your jew God told you to be fruitful and multiply faggot, people who identify the arc of the species with the genetic material in their balls are literal fucking rats

>>15336147
I think your top three points can be answered by the fact that China’s mode of production and America’s are a lot more alike now than they were 40 years ago, and that this major piece of data helps my thesis more than yours.

>>15332050
No OP, Marx had a problem with the "nuclear family" which is the conception that families are only composed of father mother and 1-2 kids, where the man only marries the woman for inheritance and power relations.
Marx and Engels were in favour of "extended families" or family structures where you are closer to your uncles, grandparents, cousins that help eachother, which was super common before capitalism took off and families started being split apart.

The anons saying shit like "hurr families bad they cause neurosis" are retarded Deleuzeans or Freudtards that are already super outdated on their retarded universal takes and think kids today dont go to schools, kindergartens or communicate with other kids, and think capitalism is what holds family units and monogamy in place when its quite literally the contrary.
Best way to cause a psych meltdown on these 60s type lefties is to simply point out that their ideas actually are even more bourgeoisie and help capitalism achieve even better effeciency.

>>15332290
>the majority of relationships aren't monogamous anyways
Most of them actually carry monogamous type schemes into them, most societies where polygamy is allowed you always have a a woman that is considered more important because she carries the title of first wife or because the sultan or the man actually loves her and uses the rest of his wives as fuck meat. You almost always have a main bitch.
Either of those you see a very close link between sex, emotional investments and possessiveness still running in the background.

As for the modern day "open relationships" they also arent even close to the majority and are just temporary shit that college teens tend to do that easily breaks off when they grow old. From what i see most of them are just lame excuses for lack of emotional attachement from both parties, or simply a high tier fetish that feeds off from not being the "norm".

>>15336393
>which was super common before capitalism took off and families started being split apart.
England had largely nuclear families since the 1300s though. Maybe that's part of why capitalism took hold to a greater degree there than elsewhere. Oh well, just another way in which the English-speaking peoples are actually the villains of Communist history.

>>15333093
Now that Marx has been dialectically crushed, can we talk about some literary books on this literature board?

>>15332755
>late stage capitalism
Surely you mean early

>>15336386
>I think your top three points can be answered
Only the third which was retroactively answered by geopolitics. China 40 years ago was American ally against SSSR, now it´s American rival and as such the process of convergence has ended. Furthermore China has little interest in championing capitalism in the way US does.

>>15337161
I had thought it was obvious but maybe I was wrong.
China’s marketization has meant the following, for each of your three points:
(1) In the wake of Mao’s cultural revolution, the stage was set for a total embourgeoisment of Chinese society; it is difficult to describe the total dominance of materialism in the Chinese middle class. I think even your phrasing (“still”) betrays some recognition that in China, as elsewhere, non-capitalistic value is disappearing.
(2) the fact that socialism’s revolutionary and messianic dimensions are overwhelmed by capitalism, and its materialistic negations work in service to capitalism, means that the revolution is a call to arms in service of capitalism, according to the consistent application of historical materialism.
(3) I think this one was obvious, and I think the “is China communist or capitalist” discussion is boring. I think that insofar as capitalism is undesireable, the Chinese system shares all the salient characteristics, including ambition (compulsion?) to expand, so call it what you want.

>>15332178
>>15332239
You are insane. What on Earth makes you think nuclear families lived 'isolated'? Communities were far stronger in the past, and children had dozens more role models including neighbours, teachers whom were actually respected, and family whom mostly lived nearby as geographical mobility was far more limited. The nuclear family within a tight-knit community evolved very naturally, it's a phenomenon repeated all over the globe in the vast majority of cultures, regardless of location or predominant religious code. Marxism has served to make people more isolated than ever, not the opposite as people like you always claim. It is VERY SPECIFICALLY cultural Marxism which has destroyed both family and community ties. Why is it so hard for you to just think a little bit harder than you're used to?

>>15338249
Capitalism and Marxism have worked together to dismantle these institutions. They are both on the same side of the fault line of the crisis in values in our time.
As much as I hate Marxism, “cultural Marxism” as presented here is a conspiracy theory that Marxists are easily able to defend against. The actual situation is that these cultural sources of value are common enemies of both the Marxist and the liberal capitalist, and have been successfully attacked by the joint action of both.

>>15335669
Hm no, reading directly from the authors is always way better than reading from secondary sources.
Although if you really want to know what Marxism is about, you'll have to read Das Kapital one day. All three volumes. And Hegel. There is no way around it. Currently i'm in the middle of Das Kapital, Vol.2. Still a lot to read, since you also have to read the theories of surplus value (unofficial Vol.4 of Das Kapital), which are highly technical studies which help to understand what is happening in current late stage Capitalism.

>>15338249
>Marxism has served to make people more isolated than ever,
I thought it was wage labor which did this. Indeed, your wage is personal, you work for yourself, and the wage is yours, only yours, and doesn't belong to your community, thus the logical consequence is that you act egoistically, and isolated. You don't work for your community anymore, but for the owner of the means of production, selling your labor force like a bitch, in exchange for a wage, and the fruit of your labor, your wage, doesn't belong to the community, but to you, and yourself. It's only logical that this create egoistical and individualistic behaviors.
You are the typical trad with cognitive dissonance. Promoting Capitalism, a mode of production which creates atomization,but you still want trad life, when it's obvious that Capitalism don't want trad-life, but mass immigration (dump wages = more profit), feminism (dump wages = more profit), and LGBT culture (diversion from class struggle).

>>15332092
parents pass on the psychosis by definition

>>15332050
Literally to control ideology as well be dependent on the state.

the communist manifesto doesn't have anything to do with families. why don't you actually read it instead of shitposting about it

>>15338249
>Marxism has served to make people more isolated than ever, not the opposite as people like you always claim.

lmao what the fuck are you blithering about

>>15339395
The other anon isnt promoting capitalism imo. I do very well agree that capitalism leads to the overcoding of cultures, the atomized individuals and death of communities. But the anon is right that you have many modern self proclaimed leftists who push for measures and ideals that, after being used in political debates, only help capitalism even more in atomazing individuals and overcoding every remains of "organic" cultures.
This is something that emerged a lot during the 60s with the hippies and post modern philosophers like Deleuze and Guattari who went on series of spergouts saying that monogamous love was "capitalistic",that families should not exist and celebrating drug use and
le "sexual freedom" etc etc.
These spergouts after taking a political form only helped capitalism further in creating isolated hypersexual, mobile, consumerist beings that dont engage in serious relations (either because they cant or because they dive into the "hookup cultures"), dont have attachments to their family members and local communities, use the drug culture as means of escapism from their problems and (more vastly in the case of women) even incentivize people further to commodify their bodies as this is almost always celebrated and labeled as "progressive, empowering, liberating".

If you want to see a non-monogamous society in action go to Baltimore lol