The Next Step to Marxism? The Abolition of the Family


Larrey Anderson writes this thought provoking piece at American Thinker:

***All credit for the following goes to Larrey Anderson and American Thinker***

April 01, 2010

The Abolition of the Family

America is headed down an extremely dangerous path to a potential catastrophe that is rarely discussed. It is the eradication of the family.

Abolition of the family! … The bourgeois family will disappear, in the course [of history] as its supplement [private property] disappears, and both will vanish with the destruction of capital. 
 – The Communist Manifesto
, Chapter 2, Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels. (My translation.)

The top priority of Marxism was the abolition of the family; Marx laid down the strategy for its destruction. His thesis was simple: Eliminate capital — exterminate the family [i]. More and more empirical evidence is piling up to show that this is exactly what is happening in America.

Whether or not it is being done intentionally, the federal government, using money from the TARP and Stimulus bills, has taken precise steps to undermine the family. An article titled “How a New Jobless Era will Transform America” in the March 2010 edition of The Atlantic says this:

The weight of this recession has fallen most heavily upon men, who’ve suffered roughly three quarters of the 8 million job losses since the beginning of 2008.  Male dominated industries (construction, finance, manufacturing) have been particularly hard-hit, while sectors that disproportionately employ women (education, health care) have held up relatively well.  … [It] looks possible that within the next few months, for the first time in U.S. history, women will hold a majority of the country’s jobs.

Yet very little of the stimulus money has been funneled into the male-dominated industries. Contrary to the popular impression, only a small fraction of the stimulus money has gone into shovel-ready constructions projects (where more men are employed). Outside of the initial tax breaks ($250 billion of $850 billion in the first stimulus bill), the vast majority of the money has been distributed to local and state governments, education, and the health care industries. Almost none of the funds have gone to support small businesses, where the majority of start-up jobs are created in America.

The distribution of the stimulus money is part of the reason why the unemployment rate of young black men in America is nearing a staggering 50%. There are very few shovel-ready construction, manufacturing, or other private enterprise jobs for young men (of any race) in this country. The bulk of the federal money is going into the service industries. The spending strategy of the Obama administration and the current Congress seems intended to ensure that private-sector jobs for men do not appear.

Marx stated that the family would cease to exist with the disappearance of capital. He meant that the family, private businesses, and private property were intimately entwined. And he was right.

Well over a hundred banks have closed their doors in the last two years. Young men (or women) wanting to start and grow a new business have less and less opportunity to borrow capital for such an enterprise. No new businesses means no new jobs.

That economic recessions and depressions destroy the careers of more male than female workers has been long known and often studied. Mirra Komarovsky, in her groundbreaking work The Unemployed Man and His Family (1940), showed that during the Great Depression,

The economic crisis hit blue-collar occupations harder than service jobs; as a consequence, working-class men often found it harder to find work than did their wives.  And yet, traditional views of masculinity prevented many men from sharing bread-winning responsibilities: “I’d rather turn on the gas than let my wife work!” one man told her (76).

In my forthcoming book, The Idea of the Family, I demonstrate that it is not “the traditional view” of masculinity that instills in a man the desire to provide for his family. I prove, rather, that work for the male is a biological, psychological, and even philosophical necessity for the preservation of the family.

Once his participation in coitus is over, the man plays no biological part in the creation of his offspring. Unlike the woman, who carries her baby to term and then nourishes the newborn infant at her breast, the man’s role in the family is necessarily ideal. He is biologically and psychologically separated from the procreative process. The man needs a reason to stay with his wife and family. If he is to remain with his family, his role (at least initially) can only be that of provider and protector [ii].

The surest and quickest way to eliminate the family is to make certain that a young man (who might wish to marry and start a family) does not have access to a job. This ensures that the young man has no reason to remain with an impregnated female.

It is not by accident that over 70% of black children in America are born out of wedlock. Almost 50% of young black men in America are unemployed. And without a job, a man has no incentive to start or remain with his family.

The Obama administration has done next to nothing to stimulate those parts of the economy that provide employment for young men and, therefore, protect and strengthen the family. This is the dirtiest and nastiest of not-so-secret secrets that no one seems to want to address.

Meanwhile, Karl Marx is laughing in his grave.

Larrey Anderson is a writer, a philosopher, and submissions editor for American Thinker. He is the author of the novel The Order of the Beloved and the memoir Underground. His next book, The Idea of the Family, examines the role of procreation in human self-awareness.

[i] After losing power, Leon Trotsky would claim that the reason that communism had not been successful was that Stalin had not been ruthless enough in his efforts to eliminate the family. See Trotsky’s The Revolution Betrayed, trans. Max Eastman, New York, 1965, pp. 145ff.


[ii] This does not mean that a man cannot eventually become the caretaker of his children and his wife become the provider — or that the tasks of provider and caretaker cannot be shared. But the man’s initial role in the family, during and shortly after the procreative process, can only be that of provider and protector. Otherwise, there is no reason for a man to stay with his family. Men cannot give birth.

<end blog>

**Emboldened areas added for focal points**
Romanticpoet’s end notes:
No jobs for blue-collar workers as well as white-collar workers.

The only jobs that have GROWN is the Federal jobs sector.

Business unionism on the horizon? 

Only jobs available will be union jobs? 


President Obama has issued several Executive Orders concerning employees of government contractors. On January 30 th, President Obama issued Executive Order Number 13494 which governs allowable costs regarding union activity and Executive Order Number 13496, which requires notice of employee rights under the federal labor laws. On February 6 th, President Obama issued Executive Order 13502, which encourages Project Labor Agreements on federal construction projects.

Note: January 30, 2009:  10 days after being inaugurated as President.
Is Obama forcing those that don’t want to unionize the ONLY alternative: Military service? 

Or National Service?

Remember Obama wants a National Civilian Security Force  because we cannot rely on just the military for Nation Security we need a National Civilian Security Force……”Just As powerful….just as strong…..and just as well funded”

Taking power away from parents and giving it to the children:  Obama speaking these words…..”Talk to your parents……”

Al Gore speaking these words:

“Don’t listen to your parents”…..

Children singing praise of Obama:

Mandatory Civilian Service:  Rahm Emanuel’s own words:

Link to video


Serve America Act – Amends the National and Community Service Act of 1990 (NCSA) and the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973 (DVSA) to revise their programs and reauthorize appropriations for them through FY2014.

Title I: Amendments to National and Community Service Act of 1990 – Revises under the NCSA: (1) the School-Based and Community-Based Service-Learning programs and Higher Education Innovative Programs for Community Service, also known as Learn and Serve programs; (2) National Service Trust programs, also known as AmeriCorps; (3) the Civilian Community Corps Demonstration program; and (4) the Investment for Quality and Innovation program.

Subtitle E: Amendments to Subtitle E (National Civilian Community Corps) – (Sec. 1502) Renames the Civilian Community Corps Demonstration program as the National Civilian Community Corps (NCCC) program. Permits the NCCC to operate nonresidential programs.

(Sec. 1503) Makes individuals eligible for participation in the NCCC program, other than the summer program, if they will be at least 18 before the end of the calendar year in which they enroll, but are no more than 24 when they begin participating in the program.

Requires the NCCC Director to take measures to increase the percentage of program participants who are disadvantaged youth toward 50% by 2012.

(Sec. 1504) Requires, to the extent practicable, that at least 50% of the participants in the NCCC summer program are from economically and ethnically diverse backgrounds, including youth who are in foster care.


The family unit has already started to decay.

Some Children out at all hours of the night.


The ability of discipline taken out of the family and school due to being “abusive” and teaching violence…..

What did our children do before Cell phones and video games?

What do the unemployed do with their spare time?

WHY are Federal jobs the only sector that has GROWN in this recession?

WHERE are the saved or created jobs for the white collar workers?  The blue collar workers?

Is it the intent of this current administration to destroy capitalism to usher in socialism?





The URI to TrackBack this entry is:

RSS feed for comments on this post.

6 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. I’m always amazed at the sheeplike ignorance of the American people. Every time I come across something that might redeem my opinion of them, I come across an article such as this one. The demonization of marxism by the United States’ government and media has been hugely successful, but it is all lies. All of it.


    Response by Romanticpoet:

    Okay, I’ll bite. What parts EXACTLY are lies?

    Coming from a Canadian that more than likely likes a Socialism model.

    Demonization of Marxism? That statement by you just admits you are FOR Marxism/Socialism/Communism……eh?

  2. The bourgeois family you talk of Marx wishing to destroy is a family based on money alone. He talks of this in and of itself being a destruction of the traditional nuclear family. HIs words that you have misinterpreted are prefaced by the following statement, “On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain.This state of things finds its compliment…in public prostitution.” This is saying that the modern family, because of capitalism, is being reduced to merely a way to make money. His aim in capitalism is not to absolve families with his plans, but to return the family to a state uncorrupted by money. Taking that quote out of context and misunderstanding the definition of a bourgeois society could lead to your conclusion, but when the text is read within context, your claims do not really hold up.


    Is THIS what the Middle Tennessee State University is teaching students?

    “On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain.This state of things finds its compliment…in public prostitution.”

    …….the modern family, because of capitalism, is being reduced to merely a way to make money.

    His (Marx) aim in capitalism is not to absolve families with his plans, but to return the family to a state uncorrupted by money.

    Marxism vs. Capitalism?

    I suppose YOU want the government to dole out money to families instead of encouraging them to work to find success, responsibility and self-worth.

    Or to abolish money all together and work for government “chits” in order to obtain toilet paper, sugar, coffee, etc.

    Welcome to the USSA my friends via Anne at MTSU.



  3. I really appreciate your attack of me as a person by degrading my educational institution. I also appreciate you putting words in my mouth instead of offering a counter-argument against the textual evidence I gave against your argument. It was also a nice touch by adding your allusion to the Soviet Union in an attempt to alienate me and try to shame my representation of Marx.

    However, I was not trying to push anything against capitalism. I was just trying to give context to the assumptions you were basing your arguments against Marx on. Marx was not trying to abolish the family. He was trying to show how money can get in the way of the nuclear family-surely you can agree to that. Examples of that in modern times can include a father who spends time at work more than he visits his own family and misses his children’s youth. Or perhaps a family situation forces a child to start work at an early age and not focus on schoolwork which then causes problems with their academic success. These are the kinds of problems Marx is arguing against-that money can tear apart a family. Surely you have seen this in your experience.

    I did not mean to insult you, but instead to add context to your statements and claims made.



    You are not insulting me; you are just showing the world your ideology and your admiration for Karl Marx.


    Something for you to read, Anne

    Abolition [Aufhebung] of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.

    On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.

    The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.

    Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.

    But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.

    And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, &c.? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.

    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.

    Chapter 2:

    Do you REALLY agree with the above Anne?


    “However, I was not trying to push anything against capitalism.” Really? Does that mean YOU don’t believe in sharing the wealth?

    Socialism/Marxism only works until you run out of other people’s money. Then what?


  4. I don’t believe I ever said that I believe in his ideologies. Never once did I say that. I was just demonstrating how far out of context you had removed the quote you used in your initial article. My goal is not to spread communism or any other social construct at all.

    I believe there are great merits to capitalism. It’s why we get the newest technology or the newest medicine as soon as we do. There is nothing wrong with that competition that is fueled by monetary motivation. I am just saying that the bourgeois family you say Marx is talking about is one who is being destroyed by money. That is what he aims to move away from. He seemed to want essentially the same things you want-the reestablishment of a nuclear family.

    There are problems with extreme motivation by money which can destroy a family-which is what Marx speaks of. There are also problems that come with communism, as seen by other’s attempts at such social constructs. Moderation tends to be what works well.

    I am just trying to give a textual context for your information that is the basis of your argument. I, again, see you have addressed none of my concerns but have again used a fear tactic by putting words in my mouth.



    Your words:

    “My goal is not to spread communism or any other social construct at all.”

    “I believe there are great merits to capitalism. It’s why we get the newest technology or the newest medicine as soon as we do. There is nothing wrong with that competition that is fueled by monetary motivation.”

    You seem to contradict yourself…..

    Your words:

    “I am just saying that the bourgeois family you say Marx is talking about is one who is being destroyed by money. That is what he aims to move away from.”

    “There are problems with extreme motivation by money which can destroy a family-which is what Marx speaks of. There are also problems that come with communism, as seen by other’s attempts at such social constructs. Moderation tends to be what works well.”


    Social construct: family unit

    Your words: “Moderation tends to be what works well.”

    Okay, explain to ME Anne about what YOU FEEL is moderation?

    Do YOU feel families of parents that work that support Capitalism are destroyed by money?

    Your words: “the bourgeois family you say Marx is talking about is one who is being destroyed by money. That is what he aims to move away from.”

    What was Marx moving to? A Nuclear family that does what?

    Also, explain to ME Anne an answer to this question:

    Do YOU feel there is a stronger family unit with parents that work, yet find time to attend soccer games, football games, etc. AND go to Church on Sundays…. OR….. a “family” unit of single parents on government welfare?



  5. A nuclear family is one that includes parents and children at this time. There are all kinds of families. I have friends that have one parent and are doing just fine. I have friends that have parents and step parents that are doing just fine. I, myself, come from a two parent household with a sibling and both my parents hold steady jobs. I have nothing against capitalism. I am a very product of such a society. There is not one mold for a family structure that ensures a good family as far as the numbers of the family go, coming from my experience. It depends more on what values the nuclear family have.

    You seem to lean more towards a family where the parents have time to go to soccer games and other events the child or other family members are a part of. Marx agrees. He, too, wants a family based on relationships and such rather than being reduced to a pale comparison of such a beautiful thing. He believes that money, in some cases, can cause such destruction. Haven’t you ever seen a family that has been destroyed by an absent father who is trying his hardest to provide for his family by working all the time? Wouldn’t that situation be better by having the father available to go to baseball games or church on Sunday?

    Having a steady job is great. Working hard has given me some of the greatest satisfaction I have ever had. It can really give someone the sense of accomplishment. I’m not saying working is bad. I’m just trying to show you that Marx is more against the reduction of a family’s true purpose due to an emphasis on money than he is for the destruction of the family unit.

    I agree that having a family or people to support you at least in a positive influence in many people’s lives, including my own. Family is a big part of the reason I am who I am today.

    I am also not saying that working is bad. Work can be great and I think that most people have a strong work ethic instilled in them. I am just saying that sometimes people can lose sight of what is important in life and instead focus on money or work. They simply get things out of balance. Marx believes this is what has happened to society. That is all. He is not a promoter of lazy people or people without a work ethic. He merely thinks money has become the central theme in society and wishes to return people’s focus back where it belongs.

    Finally, the last question you posed of me in your last post is, quite frankly, unfair. You act as if our complex society is so simple that it can be reduced to such a clean cut dichotomy. Either you have a job and can do all these things for you children or you’re on welfare and do not care. Do you know of no one who is a “bad father” and yet holds a job? Do you know of no one who is on welfare simply because they are down on their luck? I feel like it is real quite arrogant of you to assume there are only two types of people in this world. This issue, along with most, is not simply black and white, no matter how you think. To assume such a thing is to insult society by trying to fit it in a box defined by your own limited view of a situation.

    Thank you.



    Complex societies are just that complex.

    Yes, Marx found time to be with his children, yet he basically was destitute. Was Marx suffering from Class envy? It seems most of his writings were on “class” issues and seemed to blame capital as the root of evil.

    From the beginning of time, every living being and animal lived in a system of classes. Alpha males, alpha females, food gathers, leaders and followers. Money had nothing to do with the workings of the “clan”, the “family” etc. It was only when groups, families, etc. moved from the Agricultural (hunters/gatherers) to the Industrial period when inventions, technologies etc. developed that the middle class developed. Did this period basically start class envy? Even the demonstrations today are basically over ENVY. Occupiers today, some that don’t even pay taxes, are demonstrating against successful businesses to “pay their fair share” whilst using lap tops, iPhones, drinking Starbucks coffee, etc. But that is their choice to do so.

    Today in America we have the freedom of Choice. We can choose how we spend our money (clothes, food, flat screen TV’s, etc.).

    The family unit is built on choice. We choose what we want for breakfast, lunch and dinner. The mother and father’s marriage is built on choice. Some want to marry, some want to just co-habitate. Parents choose how to raise their children. Some choose to be self-nuturers; some choose to utilize nannies/babysitters/daycare.

    We choose which college/university we would like to attend.

    We choose what job we would like to work at/for realizing that we start at entry level. Choosing to show ambition and responsibility can move one up toward managerial positions.

    We can also choose just to stay at a median level.

    Mothers can choose to work while some fathers are stay-at-home Dads.

    We all can choose a religion or be non-conforming.

    Even our children today can choose to move out at 18 and never return.

    Capital has nothing to do with the family unit. Choices do.

    Some people make good choices; some make bad choices.

    There will always be leaders and followers be it the Ice Age, the Iron Age, the Industrial Age or the present time period.

    But we in America have the liberty and freedom to do just that; we have individual freedom to choose.



  6. Sorry this is way too funny.
    You have to take Marx seriously and not just treat him as a demon. Criticisms of capitalism are very real and very correct. Adam Smith was very critical of capitalism, and conservative economics wouldn’t point to him as a proponent of capitalism (as it’s currently defined) if they’d actually read The Wealth of Nations. His book flows right into Capital, corroborating several of Marx’s core critiques & his analysis of the labor theory of value.
    That being said, please don’t deify anyone especially Reagan who was a two-faced senile bastard that spread neo-colonialism across the world, privatized the US, and is personally culpable in the middle-class income stagnancy of the last 30 years.



    Ah, Massachusetts….home of Elizabeth “You didn’t build that” Warren.

    Suggested reading: The Dialectic Process



    Gramsci Communism paired with Alinsky tactics to push the Communist agenda.

    Seems you have swallowed the ideology and dream of the Communist Utopia.

    “Labor history of value”….Communist Party USA started in 1919 as part of Labor movement.

    Without jobs….there is nothing of “labor value” anyway. Illegal Immigration Bill will destroy any American jobs of “value” since MILLIONS may be given amnesty to TAKE jobs away from Americans. Mexicans and OTM (Chinese, Vietnamese, etc.) WILL work for LOWER wages.

    No thanks, Daniel….I’ll pass


    “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

    Joseph Goebbels quotes <<===Propagandist for Adolph Hitler




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: