Mao's eventual of destroying the family itself was surely reflected in the law of 1950 which required anyone wishing to marry to obtain the consent of the Communist Party, first for the marriage itself, and then for the choice of partner.
He then included a footnote:
It is sometimes denied, even by critical Western commentators, that Mao intended to abolish the family. They have not done their research. He said so himself, in a speech at Chengtu in March 1958: “The family, which emerged in the last period of primitive communism, will in the future be abolished.”
It is not a coincidence that every totalitarian regime disrupts the family. For the nuclear family is the building block of any society. Parents are always the first teachers, and while it is possible to remove the influence of these first teachers, especially if the parents are only casually involved, it is much easier to replace the state as the first teacher.
As I've mentioned before, there are two reasons to home school. First, it is quite simply a better system. Study after study has demonstrated this. Nor should it be surprising given that home-schooling is all but a reductio ad absurdum of the ubiquitous snake oil of reducing the student-teacher ratio. Moreover, most of the time one spends in school is wasted; most of what one learns at school is either trivial or completely unnecessary. Home schooling does a good job of cutting out most of the fluff.
But the second reason is more important. The responsibility to educate one's children belongs to the mother and father of said children. It is not the duty of the state. Certainly the state may, on occasion, and probably by accident, do a decent job; but more often the state works on creating docile little minions for the burgeoning totalitarian regime. Beware the dawning of the all-powerful American State.
7 comments:
Who can afford to homeschool? People need two incomes to survive. Capitalism is destroying the family, we are all too busy working.
Some people obviously can't, but two incomes are not always necessary to survive. I was fortunate to have a dad who made enough money to allow for my mom to stay home. She didn't home school us, but that has more to do with my dad's notions about the matter.
I would argue that it is not capitalism that is destroying the family. Instead, it is godless consumerism and materialism as well as feminism.
Some families truly need two incomes to put food on the table, but we don't need all that we think we do. Once upon a time, people got along fine without iPods and designer clothes. I'm confident we don't need much that we think we do.
Which brings me to feminism. When middle-class women who did not need to work entered the work force the result was, predictably, a decrease in the purchasing power of the average American family. By "choosing" to work, women who do not need to work are insuring that their poorer sisters were forced to. How's that for solidarity!
The vast majority need two incomes to survive today. I don't have the numbers handy, but I am quite positive it is a large percentage.
I agree that we don't need a lot of the junk that we have, but that is part of capitalism. Consume, consume and consume. Too bad homes weren't getting more affordable instead of fast food and electronics
I don't see how capitalism is to be faulted for the price of homes. Perhaps you can offer a solution. Keep in mind that "affordable housing" is government-run, which means it ends up like the slums of say, Chicago.
Is there a perfect solution, probably not. The French are making housing a right. It's a start.
nuculear families might be fine for some folks but to insist they are some "end all be all" is to lack imagination or any notion of the possible. Youll love this one ,Wiser."The bourgeoise clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parent and child, becomes all the more disgusting,the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labor.'
Karl Marx
The French are on the road to ruin as well, only they are sprinting toward it, rather than our stumbles. Their government will continue it's decline since their hoped for savior in the EU isn't likely to make it. They won't be able to use it as a subsidy so that there economy will continue to decay or they will make cuts that might result in mass revolts and lead to one dictator or another gaining the keys to that kingdom. I wouldn't use the French as an example of what to do.
The fall of income came with the introduction of two mandates (both socialist/communist/facist based as they are egalitarian, an aspect of all of those forms of governance), equal pay and equal opportunity. As well, the fall in births began here. To fix it, we are "importing" lower tier workers and exporting manufacturing and technical work in order to maintain the appearance of a growing economy. It's a dead end. There exist fixes, but they will hurt. We will either choose the fixes or we will have more draconian ones forced on us by necessity.
Capitalism is the only hope, not just for us, but for the world. It is the real revolution. The others just usher in new leaders using old ways, dictators instead of emperors. Now, whether the revolution is going to make it is for others to know. I can only say I hope it does or we will enjoy another global dark age.
Post a Comment