|
Post by The Red Factions on Sept 13, 2005 21:09:55 GMT
According to The Communist Manifesto The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation.
In the interest of female emancipation and abolition of child exploitation - the authors proposed the abolition of family. In light of the reforms and impressive progresses witnessed in Sweden for example, do some of the revolutionnary marxists here still support this concept - knowing this was not an especially popular theory in the first place?
|
|
|
Post by TheMightyPump on Sept 13, 2005 21:25:06 GMT
Enlighten the uneducated amongst us of these impressive progresses in Sweden that you are refering to, por favor.
|
|
EuroSoviets
Defence Forces
Founders of the Allied States of EuroIslanders.
Posts: 697
|
Post by EuroSoviets on Sept 18, 2005 6:36:24 GMT
I didn't notice this topic RF.
Yes, I completely support the abolition of the family and I completely agree with Marx that the family relationship (i.e. parent to child) is purely monetary ultimately.
The simple fact is that parents cannot be trusted to bring up children. Society must take responsibility at a basic democratic level. Our children must be entitled to a fair and balanced education free of the stifling influence and oftentimes tyranny of parenthood. They must feel free to make their own choices and the only way I believe that is possible is if their surrounding community is their guardian and not their biological parents.
|
|
|
Post by Revolutionary Masses on Sept 18, 2005 10:27:53 GMT
I agree, but how can that be achieved practically? When can a child be certified as knowing enough to make informed decisions and are we socially/biologically capable of doing this, parent-child bonds are very strong and a child (orphan) ripped away from that often ends up being an emotional time-bomb doomed to faliure? A society where everyone cares for the next generation to ensure the good of the whole of society is definately a must however biologically I believe humanity to be too primitive currently to achieve such a thing. We are too much of a simple "pack" animal, indeed probably even worse, its only technology that holds our society together as a coherant mass! Dont worry though as evolution is the key and a lecturer from sheffield told me that human society was heading in the right direction biologically anyway, so as said progress to communism is inevitable biologically it would seem.
|
|
|
Post by TheMightyPump on Sept 18, 2005 13:23:40 GMT
Enlighten the uneducated amongst us of these impressive progresses in Sweden that you are refering to, por favor. Hello?
|
|
EuroSoviets
Defence Forces
Founders of the Allied States of EuroIslanders.
Posts: 697
|
Post by EuroSoviets on Sept 18, 2005 13:51:39 GMT
I don't agree that familial relationships rely on evolution or biology to the degree you impute, RM.
One of the problems is that socialization of the family cannot occur under capitalism. Everyone in this system is worried about how much money they have - people even decide not to have any children because they couldn't not afford them. In such circumstances it is hard to see how anyone could willingly take on the children of the others in their community when it would mean sacrificing resources themselves.
I don't believe the inherent opposition would exist under socialism; it wouldn't be a trade off between children or more resources.
First of all our dwellings are incredibly inefficient. Comfortable, spacious homes could be created with enough rooms for gardens and could still leave room for a space dedicated to education and play. Homes would not be castles and people would be able to walk between the homes of one another - communal facilities might not be a bad thing such as a kitchen room and so on. With the coming together of residences, I think the transition from parental control to communal control would be pretty natural.
Of course my ideas are pretty basic; the point of Marxism is not to lay out what the finished picture will be in all its respects, it is simply to provide a method of analysis of the current system and how to change it and what the class balance of forces will be like at the end to ensure the existence of communism. The details we fill in ourselves by common consent.
|
|
|
Post by D.S. of Soviet Sexy Girls on Sept 18, 2005 17:47:03 GMT
Human beings have stopped to evolve biologically thanks to technological researches. We are only evolving socially now.
Don't want to be offensive, but I found that Marxist principle pretty ridiculous. Of course some parents can't be trusted to bring up children, but no all. Parent-child relations are essential to the construction of an identity and severing them in favor of guide-child relations would be dangerous in my opinion. Society can help parents, but not replace them in every aspect... Even if that particular society is a communist one.
|
|
|
Post by canteria on Sept 18, 2005 20:10:04 GMT
Yes. Though I certainly hate the Religious Right's "family values" ideas, the family is a natural and essential part of human life.
|
|
Ketoprofen
Defence Forces
Ketoprofen - The Proletariat Coalition
Posts: 1,883
|
Post by Ketoprofen on Sept 19, 2005 6:23:58 GMT
Personally, I think that abolition of the current family concept wouldn't be a bad thing, but I wouldn't go as far as abolishing the familiy in itself.
A simple analysis of our society strongly indicates that the parents force upon their offspring their policies, religions and often heritage, which ultimately perpetuates the social inequalities and slows down progressive reforms.
But I have no idea as to what we should propose as a solution ....
|
|
|
Post by Revolutionary Masses on Sept 19, 2005 14:09:35 GMT
Lol being a biochemist I suppose my opinion is really one sided but i honestly state that everything you are and pretty much everything humanity is can be related to your biology, with a few technological grafts that have allowed society to become what it is today.
I think its less attributed to financial concern (benifits are avaliable) in advanced countries, indeed in most contries including advanced capitalist ones more children is a benifit as it is a end source of more income for the family, its more of lack of time and the social stresses that come with the 24hr lifestyle that prevent relationship. Oh and dont forget contraception and the image troubles!!
This is indeed stupid, due to technological development we have actually massively increased the rates of mutation due to chemical intake and radiation exposure. Additionally evolution is a spontanious thing, everytime you have sex your contributing to it, it is also powered by entropy which is unstoppable, a species cannot help but evolve! You would be breaking the laws of thermodynamics not to LOL!
|
|
|
Post by D.S. of Soviet Sexy Girls on Sept 19, 2005 17:08:02 GMT
I never implied that biological mutations have stopped. Human genome do evolve, but natural selection does not have any more pressure on humanity, rendering major changes irrelevant. That is what I meant by the end of biological evolution. If humanity survive long enough, the gene pool will have evolved but human beings will be similar to current one. No big heads, no stronger toe, no 4-fingers feet... And you will agree that even if we are using a lot of products that could accelerate mutations, the rate of mutations during the meiose (sp ?) is really, really slow. I would question the fact that radiation exposure has grown, also... Actually, life do break the second law of thermodynamics by reducing entropy in living organism (DNA also) ! Nb : Biology was my specialty in last year of High School
|
|
|
Post by Revolutionary Masses on Sept 19, 2005 20:34:41 GMT
Eep, I thought I was agreeing with you in saying that the initial paragraph that humanity was only developing socially was wrong! Ahhh confusion LOL! I do believe that natural selection is still having an influence on humanity. A simple example is when people decide who they want to have a relationship with the person with the horrific disfigurment is at an obvious disadvantage and will be selected against. Your right I do find it unlikely that major changes will occur (appologies for those waiting for an extra arm to scratch your back...dont hold your breath . I also agree that as an effect on overall physiology, chemical and radiation based mutations will probably not have a big impact but they do leave us more vunerable to desease and defect, which could very well have a big impact. Radiation exposure is a big part of mutation and is highly prevelant (skin cancer to name but one)! Most of it of cause is self inflicted and does not effect reproduction....thankfully. But the reduction in entropy due to the formation of the code is offset by the entropy gained by the breakdown of the ATP and initial resource used to create that ATP, so the entropy of the overall system does increase. Cool, biology is a great subject, what did you cover? Did you get to do any dissection LOL, that was one of my favs as my mates dad worked in a abertoire (sp) so over the coarse of the term we dissected our way through most parts of a sheep LOL!
|
|
|
Post by D.S. of Soviet Sexy Girls on Sept 20, 2005 0:18:36 GMT
I do believe that natural selection is still having an influence on humanity. A simple example is when people decide who they want to have a relationship with the person with the horrific disfigurment is at an obvious disadvantage and will be selected against. Hum. Natural selection works so that useful advantages are favored and become more and more common upon generations. Allowing an obvious disadvantage to survive is going against natural selection and humanity is doing that more and more. There is for example the case of myopia people who are more and more common since they are helped by our modern society (I'm in that case ) However I won't say that having an horrific disfigurment is a disadvantage related to natural selection as it'd be mostly non-genetic. A mutation that does not effect reproductive cells is irrelevant for Natural Selection, you know it We covered Human reproduction (in details) and AIDS, Human metabolism and genetics for the biology part. We also had geology lesson because Biology and Geology are coupled in French High-schools. Dissection are totally forbidden here now, the only we done was of a beef's heart and it was pretty illegal (half the class didn't bear it and left the classroom...) But, I have now totally left biology to concentrate on physics mostly... ;D
|
|
|
Post by Revolutionary Masses on Sept 20, 2005 9:57:36 GMT
I guess that depends on what caused your disfigurment! ;D
Indeed but radiation and chemical mutation can effect reproductive tissue which can lead to problems down the line.
LOL the final dissection we had was a whole rat! We got round the issue by buying pre-killed snake food, the sheep organs was abertoire waste, although we had to be careful due to the BSE issue!
|
|
gilligus
Diplomat
Ambassador from the Alliance of Socialist States
Posts: 100
|
Post by gilligus on Sept 23, 2005 19:09:57 GMT
Abolition of the family is completely rediculous. There have been experiments done that show that children are less healthy and more likely to die of SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) when they are not embraced and given affection regularly. Infant mortality rate would increase,depression rates would rise in both children and adults/parents.
Besides, would you say that you don't love your family? Honestly, would you rather have been raised by the state, and missed out on formative childhood experiences? People would be cold, mindless, emotionless. Marx shows suprising ignorance of human nature for someone who claims to base his works completely on reason...
|
|