One thing I found particularly interesting were Marx's comments concerning family in "Proletarians and Communists". It's interesting how he classifies the family as a means for only private gain, and thus sweeps it under the umbrella of bourgeois. I understand that he means the family is acting as a means for a specific group to grow in prosperity, but he ignores the whole function of the family as a support of the youngest of society. In his society, how would young ones not starve since they cannot fend for themselves? Someone must watch over a baby until they can fend for themselves. Yes, one could assign a person to take care of infants, but then that person would still be utilizing the children as a means to an ends.
I see his comment concerning parents exploiting their children, but what about the sacrifices of the parent for the welfare of the child? If Marx says that these sacrifices were actually a means towards raising them to be utilized for capital, how could any other inter-personal reaction be seen as anything else? Even in his perfect society?
Chats on Jeremy's
His view of family being private gain reminds me of Plato and his ideal city. He wanted the Warriors' complete focus to be protecting the city. He believed if the Warriors knew which child was his/hers their focus would be to protect their children not just the city. i just think it's interesting how in these two ideal cities, the leaders wish to change family. What does that say about families?
ReplyDelete