Stoller: I think my definition of 'nuclear family' preceded my criticism of it.
: Not at all. You said "The nuclear family, read, women's subordination."
That's right, I'm NOT going to defend women's subordination to men. Communal dining halls, laundries, and child care centers will enable women to work (outside the home) and, thus, be entitled to receive according to need---plus be dependent upon NO ONE.
: In other words, you imply that the nuclear family is synonymous with patriarchy.
: And that i cannot agree with.
But I DO believe in the 'nuclear family'---once material foundations are laid to make it completely voluntary.
Your definition is different. You want women to stay put in 'traditional' roles.
: I'm saying women should CHOOSE how much time to spend in the workp[lace and working at home.
I believe child birth should exempt women from work for a liberal period (like the Bolsheviks did). But I categorically reject the idea of career housewives! When communists say that everyone must work, they mean everyone.
: What would you do if a man, a women, and their kids all WANT to eat at home? Would you FORCE them to do otherwise?
If we consider a democratic conception of production, such decisions (whether or not to build kitchens in each home) would be left to all working citizens. But I must say that (Marxist) communism does grant rationalization a large place in its initiating vision. After all, you feel strongly that transportation would be public (rationalized). But, in your case, not cooking and dining facilities...
I say let the people vote: if men and women want to work extra hours to put individual kitchens in their homes so they can cook and clean up in their own kitchens each night, all the power to them.
My only concern was that you might be thinking that women want to cook and clean up after for men... After all, it was you talking about upholding 'traditional values' in the home and all...
Stoller: Are we to FORCE men who reject their women to stay with them anyway?
: Do you mean that it's not right to encourage men who don't want to live with their wives to do so anyway?
Not the job of the state. In a Marxist conception, all love-bonds are extra-economic, free of all persuasion and pressure. Only love keeps a couple together.
: It's an axiom of primate biology that women are more faithful then men, that men are more faithless than women, and so easy divorce is going to hurt women more than men. Ask Middle Eastern women if they think divorce (for men) should be easier of harder.
I'm not going to ask anyone in semi-feudal culture their opinions on marriage and the family. I'm talking about modern socialistic relations here---with relations completely released from the bondage of private property (something you're not entirely prepared to release).
I've made my points, no reason to repeat myself, we simply are at a dead end.
: [M]aking a small profit is not a right, it's a PRIVILEGE that socialist society decides to grant to some people.
Some 'socialism,' full of privileges and profits! I say to hell with it---opportunism!
