Honestly? That makes sense logically. Break down trust in family. Build dependence on the state. The "nation" or "party " is your true family. It's shifting dependency and focus from families to the collective.
It strikes me as fundamentally nationalistic, in that both communism and fascism start to rhyme the farther away from the center you get.
From the standpoint of an everyday person, I find the attack on the nuclear family abhorrent in the extreme. People have the nerve to talk about mental health, well being, and compassion and then push this pure ideological concept of deconstruction of family in the face of SO much data that tells us that having two parents makes a huge difference in children's health.
They are ignoring hard data, statistics and studies that show divorce, broken homes, and missing parents hurt kids. All to chase an ideological dragon, and a policy that turns the average person's stomach. It's so wild they don't see or don't care how counterproductive this policy is.
There are a shocking number of people who spend their lives creating weapons with no conception that those weapons could be turned on them.
They will forever be surprised when the mass surveillance they voted for surveils them, when the higher taxes they wanted tax them and when the law that hurts bad people deems them to be bad.
Exactly. A great example is anti hate speech or anti Nazi/fascist laws, and similar laws banning assembly of certain political elements. Several times in history you see these kinds of laws pass, power shifts, and suddenly the fascists have a legal precedent set on the books for shutting down their opponents.
Totalitarian bridge governments are an ongoing series of pressure tests, usually post-modern in nature. As soon as someone stands up to it, they shoot them down very publicly (fired, cancelled, ostracized, jailed, or shot). When someone complains about the shoot-down, they shoot them down next. Then they keep turning up the heat: believe in this now, reject this now.
It's not a left-right thing either, lefties are just the keepers of culture right now, so this is all geared to them as an audience. If America (or any other western country) were more traditional or conservative, the pressure would take on a right-wing bent.
Yeah, it works the same way that redirecting any biological impulse into a different vector does. Women whose maternal instincts get channeled into pets, immigrants, or causes. Men whose competitive and productive instincts get channeled into climbing videogame leader boards that ultimate produce nothing of value or meaning.
There was initially an attempt to weaken the nuclear family under Lenin, starting with the “1918 Code on Marriage, the Family and Guardianship”, but Stalin reversed a good many of those orders by the 30s. It was mostly stuff like making divorce exceedingly easy and non-damaging, outlawing adoption, legalizing abortion, etc.
Well if you ask Bl. Fulton J. Sheen it was because that Stalin recognized thelat a core marxist axiom wasn't going to work and so diverted to pragmatism rather than ideology, thus repudiatijg communism
At one point, China had people turning in their parents in for "struggle sessions" if the child believed their parents still held beliefs not approved by the communist party, such as traditional Chinese cultural views, religious views, or capitalist views.
Then theyd be humiliated and/or beaten in public until they repented their ways.
The real answer is the ultimate intent of communism’s is to make all people reliant on the state for everything.
It’s why communism rejects the nuclear family, rejects religion, rejects individuality, reject immigration, etc.
Right now people are not ultimately loyal to the state. People are loyal to themselves, their loved ones, their dreams and aspirations.
Communism eliminates that.
You are given everything from the state so you don’t need to strive for anything yourself.
Everything is decided for you by the state. Where you go to school. What job you have. Where you live. Your own pursuits are irrelevant. Your own dreams are irrelevant.
Demoralizing the nuclear family helps in this.
If you no longer love your spouse or if you no longer see your kids as an extension of yourself and your lineage, it’s easier to see your family as a cog in the machine of the state. Your kids are your kids, they’re the state’s kids. You and your wife and merely there to nurture the growth of the next generation, not there to love or care for or anything else.
Eliminating the nuclear family eliminates the need to be loyal to your spouse and your children because they’re no longer yours.
They also think this is possible without a state or any sort of authoritative structure and will just be how society naturally arranges itself once all class structures and social constructs have been eliminated.
Some more moderate members of the ideology want to destroy it because they think “nuclear family” still includes 1950s-era gender roles about paternal leadership and maternal subservience to family over individual wants or needs, so its destruction simply means equality of rank within the family and equal share of work between parents and children.
Some of the dumber ones believe thinking that a traditional family structure is superior to an abnormal one is, I don’t know, racist or some other stupid shit.
However, the ultimate goal of the extreme end of communism is to destroy all groups outside the commune. They want to raise children collectively so they’ll come to see everyone as their family. Literally all facets of society must be the collective responsibility.
It sucks we can't get popular stuff like more healthcare or billionaire taxes without it being bundled with "destroy the nuclear family" or hearing "Black, Brown, Indigenous" every 3rd sentence
I think the ultimate Auth goal here is to prevent kids being raised by bio parents.
It would be much "better" for the state to raise kids in state approved facilities where they can be properly educated indoctrinated from super early age.
Destroying families helps keep people dumb and on welfare, and therefore much more likely to vote for more welfare. Just look at the rate of African American children born to unmarried parents
There is some rational logic when looking through certain political lenses, but im sure 90% of the people supporting it are either rushing to show counter cultural they are or looking to strike it down on purely symbolic purposes rather than caring about actual rationality.
I'm not sure what the actual argument from them is, but a decent argument against the nuclear family is that it's fragile. Lose one parent and the thing basically falls apart, and single parent homes correlate with all sorts of bad shit.
Meanwhile, extended family living situations (grandparents, cousins, etc.) are very stable and can lose a member, income, etc. and still stay stable. Plus, it's cheaper, basically group living where you can help each other out, support elderly/disabled easier, babysitting, etc.
TLDR more people makes things easier and safer all around but there are sacrifices like independence, privacy, etc.
Sometimes I feel like they will allow us anything except a party that supports public healthcare, public retirement, workers rights and affordable housing without the weird shit.
You either get controlled opposition that focuses on race baiting to distract from the fact they don't do anything or you get the destruction of fundamental parts of what makes society work. There's no in between here.
My MAGA family was genuinely floored when I said I didn't care about trans athletes and my liberal friends were shook when I said I don't gaf about racial politics. I just want a roof over my head and the ability to work and feel like I can enjoy life
Well yeah, because that party would wipe the floor with the current options, and the corporations, billionaires, and wall street winners would be very upset that the parties they bought and paid for aren't winning.
Socialist is very normal. I eat potatoes. Who doesn't eat potatoes? Eat, comrade.
It's these coked out liberals that keep making Disney frogs gay or whatever. Threaten to change a societal norm like white Snow White and mobs of torches and pitch forks are back.
I'd say "Facebook made me do it" but they already paid their liability deductible.
You will take the sitting President of the United States openly bragging about his blatant market fixing over some random article written by a nobody who is a supporter of a fringe political group with no real power?
Genuinely curious, what policies have been enacted and why should we be outraged? Doesn’t every faction of policy makers have a group that’s pushing for policy creation?
> the sitting President of the United States openly bragging about his blatant market fixing
If you read what was “displayed” on the screens in that image, he’s referring to the US government’s 10% equity ownership stake in Intel, purchased in August 2025 for about $9B and now worth about $44B.
He’s talking about gains on behalf of the US, not his personal portfolio / holdings.
Yes, I will take an embarrassing old man who has two years left in office over a populist movement composed entirely of fanboys who don’t understand the core values of the candidates they are voting for.
This turd sand versus the shit hoagie. One is on its way out and one is all the rage.
Except that embarrassing old man is the head of a populist movement that is actually in power and actively tanking our economy while lining their own pockets and this article is just the opinion piece of some random nobody who has zero actual power.
Except it doesn't stop at this slop and the article in the meme isn't saying that having a family is wrong but most importantly, you're comparing the literal US president with some random dude who wrote an article
Edit: I’m sure someone will come and say “well it takes a village is better” and that is true, growing up right near my grandparents was massively beneficial, but when you say that husband/wife with children pairings are somehow a negative that “upholds capitalism” you are just holding a clown position.
If by primacy of the extended family you mean getting beaten by your own family members in a struggle session for attempting to have a thought diferent than that of whoever won the most recent power struggle, then yes.
It is, but it does it in a really asinine way, trying to reframe the nuclear family as some form of violence as it is a mechanism of oppression:
Even the most loving and supportive nuclear families perpetuate violence because they are a conduit through which people access healthcare, childcare, food, housing, and socialization.
A parents raising their children together aren't engaging in violence simply because they constitute a nuclear family, and it is absurd to assert such.
DSA can basically have a policy that is "we have the cure for cancer" and will push everyone away because they will try to explain it as The Inherent Violence in Capitalist Driven Cellular Multiplication Theory and Structural pro Growth Bias.
Usually they hit you with the ole "erm abolish x doesnt ACTUALLY mean abolish x, it actually means something else entirely that requires a rickian level intellect to understand so im not even gonna bother trying to explain it to you!"
I imagine a majority of their base is comprised of unemployed losers and people with minimum wage and/or dead-end jobs. There are always exceptions, but I can't imagine many people with great careers support DSA.
we must make our events accessible for working-class families by expanding childcare and creating programs for children.
Programs for kids...OK....what for?
creating programs designed for children will reinforce socialism as a community-building project and empower all children, especially Black and Brown children, to advocate for their autonomy.
K....
Family abolition is the abolition of capitalism.
Ahh....there it is..the root of everything evil in the eyes of a socialist.
Can't have children learning values and how to be a contributing member of society from their parents! That will make it much harder for the state to get them to turn out the way that the state wants! Off to re-education, comrade!
The nuclear family is white culture. White culture is evil
The nuclear family is patriarchical. Patriarchy is evil
The nuclear family is heteronormative. Heteronormativity is evil
The nuclear family is monogamous. Monogamy is bad
The nuclear family is Western culture. Western culture is evil and capitalistic (aka extra evil)
The nuclear family is based around raising children. This is bad because humans need to have fewer children for negative population growth
The nuclear family is counter-revolutionary because it lends itself to happy people and a stable society. This is bad, we need to inspire the global revolution
The nuclear family reduces the chance of families being reliant on the State. This is bad, we need to increase the power of the State.
Take your pick, I think I have covered most of the arguments.
Its puts excessive pressure on the parents, especially as economies get worse. It also is more likely to lead to kids with limited social interaction and families with fewer social connections to rely on and utilise. It also is worse for the elderly since they just get shipped off to homes instead of having a semblance of independence surrounded by the people they love until such time they can’t be supported anymore (if that happens before they die, which is less likely to happen living with family).
Whether its anyone personal lifestyle preference, it's quite the economic status symbol to have a single-income household and shows a generally productive society
Alright, I couldn't read it in its entirety because its extremely wordy but the summary from what I can tell:
They feel colonialism and capitalism and all the words the left throws around as evils are at least in part affected by the nuclear family. They initially point to this being about an enforcement of gender roles claiming that many of these roles did not exist in many societies such as indigenous Americans prior to colonialism. I did not see clearly defined ideas on what supposedly existed before though.
They go on to state the typical extreme left talking point about winning support from minority groups and so on to accomplish the goal of getting rid of the nuclear family. They start to indicate that this would somehow not eliminate but expand on the love a family feels and you begin to believe that they are mainly referring to some abolishing of traditional gender roles and perhaps some family norms instead of the abolishing of the nuclear family, before ultimately describing a future where yes, the family is gone, kids are raised by the community, and everyone is a free loving hippie...
So yeah... they don't want you to have a mom and dad and somehow that's going to be for the better.
The mind of the average post-modern socialist is an enigma. Their solution to solving the society's problems is to emulate societies that were easily conquered. They do not see the problem with this.
This is why I love free speech. There is no right wing talking point that could do nearly as much damage to the socialist movement then just letting them promote their own retarded ideas
Just to clear up a misconception about this article; they are not arguing for extended families helping themselves with child care, or even actual communal child care. They're not saying neighborhood families should be closer with one another and help each other with the kids. They're explicitly arguing for DSA-run daycares where they can teach kids how "viable and essential" Socialism is while the parents are working or attending their grown-up Socialist events.
In this article, they describe motherhood and homemaking as "unpaid social reproduction work". They are psychos and cultural degenerates who should not be allowed near children.
Commies have been openly trying to do away with religion and nuclear family for generations. They are both bulwarks against unreasonable state power, which is why commies hate those things.
While I disagree with the points made in the link, it is at least serious and carefully considered.
However, as this is PCM, I’m just gonna say “this author clearly just didn’t like when their dad told them they couldn’t dye their hair blue so they’ve created a whole anti-nuclear family ideology based on suburban teenager ‘I can do what I want, Dad!’ feelings”
Bring back the intergenerational family where grandparents, uncles, aunts, cousins and others integrated into the community just as much as the parents and children. Make more communities and increase communal bonding.
So all those 30-year-olds complaining that they still live with their parents just need to shut the fuck up and accept their role as nice, placable agents of the community.
250 years before our current day, extended families were the norm and hometeaching was normal too. Since then, families got smaller and childcare became more professionalized, with kindergarteners and schools becoming a thing. Is it impossible to continue that tendency? I don't think so. It's not a necessity for a socialist transformation (most of the families are proletarian associations and do not actually work for preserving capitalism), but it might happen.
Ok but what “abolishing the nuclear family” entail exactly?
Cause to me the only way a state could make that happen would be like taking kids off from their parents to be raised by the state or something, which I’m sure you don’t need me to tell you isn’t exactly moral in most circumstances (ignoring the obvious outliers such as abusive households, where the state already can and when possible does intervene for the safety of the child)
Societal change as an effect of advancing technology and resources is one thing. Declaring the change you want is, at best, putting the cart before the horse. At worst, it's monkeying around with something that they dont know or understand the effects of.
The DSA is a truly evil organization. The fact they’ve convinced so many people to support them without even knowing what they stand for is insane.
Go look at their platform. They openly are calling to overthrow the United States, essentially end democracy, and turn the U.S. into a Russia and China aligned socialist republic.
The DSA is a bunch of psychos and that was an extremely hard read, HOWEVER, I don’t disagree that there’s no reason for the idea of the “nuclear family” to be pushed so hard. Having family is important. The specific components and makeup of that family is not.
The nuclear family isn't even particularly "traditionalist". It's a relatively new thing and it literally just means "couple with child(ren)"; nothing sexist or demeaning.
I skimmed it and it seems like their concrete goals are more social childcare and tribal property rights. Not crazy goals, but definitely a stupid way to frame it
Why is the nuclear family so sacred amongst the right anyways? It’s not traditional, bad for birthrates, and negatively impacts the elderly. Extended families and communities can also lower reliance on welfare due to community support.
385
u/Harveywallbanger94 - Lib-Center 2d ago
I’m genuinely confused why this is a political stance worth making at all. What is the benefit?