Page 24,
“Abolition of the family!”
Not sure that is something I would advocate, but Marx does. Now here is the strange thing; apparently, the bourgeoisie family is
“In its completely developed form this family exists only among the bourgeoisie.”
The family unit is probably the most important bond you could have in your entire life.
Why would Marx want to abolish that?
would he want to ruin the family unit?
As Marx defines it, i.e. based on capital and private gain, but didn’t royalty do that back in the day?
Using his definition, the proletariat doesn’t have family.
That would be true if they didn’t have property and wealth, but why define family as such?
Because it feeds into the narrative of bourgeoisie are bad.
The real question really is: what is the purpose behind abolishing the family and why is it necessary?
Well, if we look at what a family provides, we might see why Marx wants to abolish it.
Security, familial bonds of love, devotion, a building block of society, I am sure the list goes on.
Now, without family, what do we have?
Individuals, not beholden to anyone, children out of wedlock, single parenthood, generational amnesia, no father figures.
Basically, society as we know it would be different, and not necessarily better.
Greater governmental control would be given as far as I can see.
Will woman go to birthing areas and have their children only to be whisked away to be raised by the state?
Men will never know who their children are, grandparents won’t exist. The ability to care for others would seem to fall by the wayside.
The state would be our caregiver as far as I can tell.
When we look inward to our Western world, we see there are things in place that seem to help Marx in his quest in the family’s destruction.
One needs to look no further than the U.S.A.
Divorce is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 50% of marriages, out-of-wedlock children is roughly 40%, under 18 and living in a single parent home, almost 25%, that’s the highest in the world.
What policies are in place that allow this to flourish to such as extent?
It must be a desired goal on some level.
Why else would it be allowed to flourish?
Anyone with eyes can to see this creates a host of other issues, not to mention infrastructure to deal with the problem, so why don’t they see it, or is it a part of the plan?
Have Marxists invaded the political landscape of western nations and through creeping incrementalism created policies and infrastructure with a secret agenda that brings about Communism or as I believe, Globalism?
I never thought much of the American Constitution and Bill of Rights, in fact I never read it, until recently.
To the people of America, I don’t think you understand how utterly significant your constitution is in the history of the world and how what it stands for is being eroded with no push back is unbelievable and sad at the same time.
Under communism, you won’t have a constitution.
In time, the document itself will be erased from the memory of the human race.
I would suspect, with the destruction of the family, within one generation or less, no one will ever know or understand what the American constitution was or what it stood for.
Considering the significance of it, that is a pretty damming indictment of what communism is.
Regarding children, Marx again wants to save them from becoming:
“…instruments of labour”
and given the conditions at the time of the writing of the manifesto, it was brutal.
Anyone can read online about children as young as 7 working in the mills, or in the mines, etc.
Agreed, it was horrible, and it’s one of the stains on capitalism no doubt, and it’s still happening because no one wants to pay 70 dollars for a t-shirt when they can pay 3.
Marx is right in this regard, but taking the children away from their parent isn’t a solution?
Eventually it became unnecessary for children to work at such a young age in the west, it took decades mind you but we eventually got there.
But here is where the manifesto gets weird, page 25.
“Communists might possibly be reproached with, is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised system of free love.”
That’s right, not even prostitution, but free love, a euphemism for sex, anytime with anybody, and you don’t even have to pay.
How great is that! That is every teenager’s dream.
But how would this work, and how could this ever come about, not to mention who would do this?
Here’s the problem, as we know sex is an act, but there is also a mental aspect that can’t be dismissed.
The psychological problems something like this will introduce into the population I think is something no one can truly understand.
It doesn’t even seem to be something on Marx’s radar.
Are the women to be selected, or volunteer?
Depending on which one, there are major issues
Imagine being selected for this “duty”.
Are you then trained in the “art of lovemaking”, much like the prostitutes in Game of Thrones or do you just figure it out?
What rules surround this concept of free love?
Can you refuse people or certain acts?
What about when and where?
If not, doesn’t that mean you are un-free, which means you are a sex slave, doesn’t it?
So slavery is okay in this context?
Or because you are paid by the state it’s not “slavery”?
But I would think on some level you’d have to have a quota.
Money isn’t free, so isn’t that oppressive?
Wouldn’t that be similar to wage-labour creating capital?
What if the person assigned doesn’t want to do it but has to anyway?
Isn’t that rape, or rape won’t exist in the communist world?
Isn’t this very telling how Marx thinks of of the proletariat, or should I say the Globalists think of people in general?
I don’t think someone who admires and has respect for people would advocate for something as radical as the destruction of the family unit.
One thing is certain the destruction of the family and free sex, are two things that, I am quite sure, will destroy society as we understand it in a surprisingly short time.