I identify as a communist, but my understanding of communism is deeply rooted in the preservation of traditional family structures and what I consider to be natural moral order. Consequently, I hold critical views toward homosexuality, progressivism, drug culture, feminism, and any ideological current that challenges the conventional model of the family unit. This is precisely why I feel a certain affinity for the political and social model embodied by China, which, in my view, represents a more authentic expression of communist practice, one that prioritizes social stability, intergenerational continuity, and collective responsibility over individual autonomy. I believe that man is inherently predisposed to procreation, family formation, and mutual aid; any deviation from this path appears to me not only as social dysfunction but as a form of moral illness. Unsurprisingly, my position isolates me from nearly every political spectrum, and I have come to accept that my views will inevitably attract rejection from both the left and the right alike
>>540787448kys.
>>540787448>communism>family structureoxymoron and by that i mean that you are a moron on oxycodone
>>540787448https://youtu.be/7w1bEfXqo-A
We currently have a communist President that wants to follow the lead of Russia and China
>the preservation of traditional family structureThis goes against the communist doctrine, from which your kike-brain seems to not understand.
>>540787448What you like isn’t actually communism. China is closer to being nazi than being communist. Destruction of the family is inherent to communism. Try reading the manifesto.
you are confused as fuck bro
>>540787448youd fit right in with any soviet citizen
>>540787824>>540787808>>540787783>>540787764>>540787662You retards have no idea what communism is
>>540787662>>540787783>Communism aims to abolish traditional family structures as part of its broader goal to eliminate capitalist institutions. It promotes the idea that family roles and dynamics will change significantly, with a focus on communal support rather than reliance on the nuclear family.I think "traditional family structure" is a misleading term the "nuclear family" model was a post ww2 American thing a very brief and unordinary thing. For most of human history "it takes a village to raise a child" and it seems like communist are more about returning to that communal type of family structure.
>>540788067I’m going with it as defined by Marx and Engels in their manifesto. What is your definition of communism?
>>540787824>>540787808>>540787783>>540787764You all insult me 'cause you' re stuck in your western textbooks. Marx wrote about abolishing the bourgeois family, not the family itself, but you never read past the first chapter, so whatever.The anticommunists hate China so much they can't see it's actually more conservative than their own grandpas. And the progressives? They just panic anytime someone says 'tradition' without crying. I'm just looking at what China does, not what some dead german said. That's why all three of you freak out. I don't fit your little boxes. Sucks for you
>>540788213No, families at every recorded period of history were similar to how they are today. You just took a leftist talking point as fact uncritically. Anyone who has spent any amount of time looking at any point in history knows this. This goes back to medival Europe and Ancient Rome.
China isn’t communist. Xi is the the emperor and the ccp is the imperial court. Systems of government don’t arise randomly. They survive because they are the most suited to the peoples and lands they govern, and that is why they are stable. Having a revolution is like throwing a ball in the air. You can throw it as high as you can, but eventually it’s going to come back to the ground where it’s stable. This is especially so for an old civilization like China. Over a long period of time the system of government begins to affect the population on a genetic level. Look at the brittish empire. For centuries 1-2% of the population was executed by their legal system. Do you really think something like that wouldn’t affect the expression of alleles in a population? China is an empire and always will be. Just because they give lip service to communism doesn’t mean that is what they are.
>>540788213>>540788498https://www.marxists.org/archive/kollonta/1920/communism-family.htmWhy you can't have a trad wife and a direct debunking of your post:>There was a time when the women of the poorer classes in city and country spent their entire lives within the four walls of the home. A woman knew nothing beyond the threshold of her own home, and in most cases had no wish to know anything. After all, in her own home, there was so much to do, and this work was most necessary and useful not only for the family itself but also for the state as a whole. The woman did everything that the modern working and peasant woman has to do, but besides this cooking, washing, cleaning and mending, she spun wool and linen, wove cloth and garments, knitted stockings, made lace, prepared – as far as her resources permitted – all sorts of pickles, jams and other preserves for winter, and manufactured, her own candles. It is difficult to make a complete list of all her duties. That is how our mothers and grandmothers lived. Even today you may still come across remote villages deep in the country, far from the railroads and the big rivers, where this mode of life has been preserved and where the mistress of the house is overburdened with all kinds of chores over which the working woman of the big cities and of the populous industrial regions has long ceased to worry.(1/3)
>>540788686>In our grandmother’s day, all this domestic work was necessary and beneficial; it ensured the well-being of the family. The more the mistress of the house applied herself, the better the peasant or craftsman’s family lived. Even the national economy benefited from the housewife’s activity, for the woman did not limit herself to making soup and cooking potatoes (i.e. satisfying the Immediate needs of the family), she also produced such things as cloth, thread, butter, etc. which had a value as commodities that could be sold on the market. And every man, whether peasant or worker, tried to find a wife who had “hands of gold”, for he knew that a family could not get along without this “domestic labour”. The interests of the whole nation were involved, for the more work the woman and the other members of the family put into making cloth, leather and wool (the surplus of which was sold in the neighbouring market), the greater the economic prosperity of the country as a whole.(2/3)
>>540787448In other words you are partriotic so you want to carry the flag of your country (communism), but obviously the values you hold are in contradiction to everyone's understanding of it outside of this narrow type of context. Yea I get it but well, it's basically bullshit. It's like saying you're a fag that fucks women since your dad was a fag but real fags fuck pussy
>>540787448>>540788314Communism while using an Iphone
>>540788729>But capitalism has changed all this. All that was formerly produced in the bosom of the family is now being manufactured on a mass scale in workshops and factories. The machine has superseded the wife. What housekeeper would now bother to make candles, spin wool or weave, cloth? All these products can be bought in the shop next door, formerly every girl would learn to knit stockings. Nowadays, what working woman would think of making her own? In the first place she doesn’t have the time. Time is money, and no one wants to waste time in an unproductive and useless manner. Few working women would start to pickle cucumbers or make other preserves when all these things can be bought in the shop. Even if the products sold in the store are of an inferior quality and not prepared with the care of the home-made equivalent the working woman has neither the time nor the energy needed to 1 perform these domestic operations. First and foremost she is a hired worker. Thus the family economy is gradually being deprived of all the domestic work without which our grandmothers could hardly have imagined a family. What was formerly produced in the family is now produced by the collective labour of working men and women in the factories.(3/3)
