Our culture cannot become Better than what it can pass on reliably to another generation. Having Values that the next generation finds hollow, hypocritical, and problematic, and rejects, is a Lose position. The family is where people learn to behave. If they don't learn there, they just make trouble at school. I think the US has made it a priority that everyone work, rather than that everyone eat, or everyone read, everyone have parenting, or everyone have medical care. They invented special Jobs for people with no real skills, so that customers can buy the right to order them around and watch them jump. I would say for a family to live and thrive it would have to reject 70% or more of what is Normal in American life. And seriously undercut the commitment to Capitalism and the paying of Debt. Intentional Community is the way to go, the way for a family to HAVE a future
Some fair points. I do find some problems with the way you framed some of this, though. Like generational transmission of values - I think a new generation RECOGNIZING and insisting upon the hypocrisy etc of previously championed values is an example of becoming Better, not a Lose in-and-of itself. Also, "the family is where people learn to behave. If they don't learn there, they just make trouble at school."... This is incredibly disingenuous. This statement seems to lack a nuanced, dialectical understanding of both psychological development and the US educational institutions/paradigm - not to mention the dependent interactions between the two. And then you kind of switch gears into broader socioeconomy, and I don't really know what that has to do with the socialization of children, regarding the values thing. Well. I think we agree that we ought to struggle to better educate and provide healthcare for our people, especially children, as well as struggle against capitalist, XYZ-supremacist ideology and values, though. Verdad?
Hell yeah, I really wanted this conversation between you two since your last meeting! (Maybe I’m nuts, but I thought when you talked Nietzsche with Daniel, that yinz said you’d come back together to talk on the family. If that was a fever dream.. well.. then I’ll believe I willed it into existence.)
I don't understand his point that millennial children are going to be more family-oriented because they might have to take care of their alcoholic parents or take on responsibilities due to poor working-class conditions. My boomer parents went through that, and all it creates is narcissism, a lack of childhood, and severe trauma that will affect the family for generations. Although they are codependent and good at keeping children alive, they are not good at growing or keeping a family together. We need otium for the family to be together, which is a contradiction in capitalism because, in capitalism, the family should be working. Good, productive citizens they should be. "Forced adherence to survival culture: the absolute embodiment of that is a child taking care of their family."
Like and commenting for the algo. Good topic as always. I liked the discussion around the post-left and capitalism being compatible. It really opens ur eyes as to why the left is non-existent today, it's mostly socdem and liberal left like in France. The left needs to stop giving up discourse that is being recaptured by the right. Nationalism can have leftist interpretations, protectionism, religion and so on too. The left needs a practical realist strategy in order to capture the masses and the hegemony. We need to stop giving ground to the right wing...
Idk really know how we can abolish the bourgeois family other than returning to the ACTUAL traditional family (grandparents, aunts, uncles, neighbors, all involved in raising the kids) and hoping it withers away like the state under communism. I do suggest proletarianising stay at home parents tho. That means they are registered as jobs by the state, and are paid for their emotional and physical labor intensive position. They're provided labor unions by the state if the people haven't made them already. I think this would terrify conservatives for the opposite reason, rather than the state taking away your kids, it's turning every family into a micro-state. This is especially offensive to them since we're turning mostly mothers (patriarchy's beasts of burden) into autonomous workers, with paid sick leave, right to strike, etc. I worry this might cement traditional gender roles, since already women would have even more an incentive to go back to the kitchen so to speak. Eh, nothing a cultural revolution can't fix. What do you think?
@@delly2088I have 2 daughters. I had more aunts and uncles than they have first cousins. They have practically have no extended family to speak of now. A lot of people I know or am acquainted with, come from families where the mother might for instance, had 5 children and only 3 grandchildren. Basically they have more kids than grandchildren. Our generation aren't having kids. There's no way back out of this and no way forward that I can see.
Idk dude... turning raising and supporting a family into just another waged job doesn't seem realistic to me. Are mom and dad gonna go on strike if the kids talk back or don't eat their peas? lol
@basstrip73 there will definitely regulations to prevent that, much stricter than those of other industries. My concern is more of mom being expected to cook, clean, teach, manage, shop, supply, fix, sex with dad and emotional support for the kids and dad for absolutely nothing in return besides the most basic physical needs. Those people have the right to go on strike and demand at the very least dad stops seeing the secretary and helps around the house more. If not then at the very least get paid for such labor intensive job, rather than pay raises for the husband, building dependency
1:31:31 eh! I just spent the whole last year doing a "self-becoming" project in my "free time"! It involved reading hundreds of books and almost dying a couple of times! 🤣😭
I just needed an image to signify “the nuclear family” but I chose Simpsons because it captures the zeitgeist of 80s- 2000s regarding the decline of paternal authority. The Simpsons is almost like a parody of the modern family and the father figure. CCK philosophy has a good video on the Simpson s related to this.
i think "abolition" is a very misleading term in context of prison/police/family abolition. when "slavery abolition" means that people can't legally keep slaves, whereas family/police abolition does not mean that there will be no families or no police. it's more of rethinking/reforming than "abolition". somehow the leftist always know how to make the least appealing terms, like "dictatorship of the proletariat" etc, to instantly have a PR crisis. how you phrase things does matter, bc terminology does stick.
Very valuable and interesting talk on family. I appreciate it. But without David Cooper (The Death of the Family) or Erich Fromm (Studies on Authority and Family), let alone Sanford’s F Scale (Authoritarian Personality), a talk in a Marxist framework about family is a novel thing. And mentioning Nietzsche without Max Stiner is also a new way of grasping Marxism. Marx must be turned around on his feet. Please see my two books: Digitalism vs. Capitalism (in English) and Authoritarian Personality in 13 Lessons (in Turkish). Family is not going anywhere. It is the biological bond. The class societies turned it into an inheritance machine of labor and wealth manufacturing authoritarian personalities functional in class societies. There is no proletariat or bourgeoisie family different from each other. They are both the microcosmos of the state. Engels was half wrong but very right at pinpointing the relations among the three mechanisms of class societies: family, private property, and state.
Daniel Tutt seems like a nice buy but he has an all too common obsession with obscurantism being equal with profundity 1:14:00 Sometimes there is simply no 'there' there
It's meant to be a foundation to understand how psychoanalysis evolved and became more complex. It's like how in school biology we learn XY chromosome is for male and later learning about many variations to determine sex. But reactionaries latch to simpler concepts so can demonise anything different concept as 'woke agenda' or whatever buzzwords right-wingers currently use
Psychoanalysis gives you a very useful framework of making shit up and sounding smart while doing it. Peterson is a jungian himself, so they stem from the same flock.
Jordan Peterson says the obvious to uneducated people and Freud revolutionized psychology, pointing out aspects that were never approached in the past by educated people. Basically the opposite of each other. Being right or not, Freud started asking the questions and his mistakes were also valuable to the evolution of psychology.
Can you tell Daniel Tutt that there is a reason bibliography is at the end of the book.. You don't have to name-drop each and every author each time, just state your point, it's so annoying.
Get access to THE BACKROOM EXCLUSIVE Podcasts by becoming a Patron: www.patreon.com/OneDime
i wanna get into your backroom bb
Our culture cannot become Better than what it can pass on reliably to another generation. Having Values that the next generation finds hollow, hypocritical, and problematic, and rejects, is a Lose position. The family is where people learn to behave. If they don't learn there, they just make trouble at school. I think the US has made it a priority that everyone work, rather than that everyone eat, or everyone read, everyone have parenting, or everyone have medical care. They invented special Jobs for people with no real skills, so that customers can buy the right to order them around and watch them jump. I would say for a family to live and thrive it would have to reject 70% or more of what is Normal in American life. And seriously undercut the commitment to Capitalism and the paying of Debt. Intentional Community is the way to go, the way for a family to HAVE a future
Some fair points.
I do find some problems with the way you framed some of this, though.
Like generational transmission of values - I think a new generation RECOGNIZING and insisting upon the hypocrisy etc of previously championed values is an example of becoming Better, not a Lose in-and-of itself.
Also, "the family is where people learn to behave. If they don't learn there, they just make trouble at school."...
This is incredibly disingenuous.
This statement seems to lack a nuanced, dialectical understanding of both psychological development and the US educational institutions/paradigm - not to mention the dependent interactions between the two.
And then you kind of switch gears into broader socioeconomy, and I don't really know what that has to do with the socialization of children, regarding the values thing.
Well. I think we agree that we ought to struggle to better educate and provide healthcare for our people, especially children, as well as struggle against capitalist, XYZ-supremacist ideology and values, though.
Verdad?
Child care can be way more collectivized comrade@@KP-uc1ez
Hell yeah, I really wanted this conversation between you two since your last meeting!
(Maybe I’m nuts, but I thought when you talked Nietzsche with Daniel, that yinz said you’d come back together to talk on the family. If that was a fever dream.. well.. then I’ll believe I willed it into existence.)
Liked for your use of “yinz” and keeping diminishing regionalisms alive in the US. Fighting the good fight 🤝
I wonder how much 1dime knows about anthropology. Developing an interest in it has led me to believe the nuclear family causes more harm than good.
Freedom is borne from the constraints of the universe. It is the opposite of an existential void.. Freedom is a form of subjecthood. Thus is duality.
I didn't understand a word of that, but it sounds profound.
Drivel
@@dakotakelly2434 Perhaps you'd like to make a contribution to the idea of 'freedom'? What does it mean to you?
1:12:49 we don't need "authority" or "hierarchy"! Leadership can be merely a role, not a class! The role can be first among equals!
I wonder if the hardships of families have anything to do with economic hardships and the sacrifices of working harder, longer, for less. Hmm.
I don't understand his point that millennial children are going to be more family-oriented because they might have to take care of their alcoholic parents or take on responsibilities due to poor working-class conditions. My boomer parents went through that, and all it creates is narcissism, a lack of childhood, and severe trauma that will affect the family for generations. Although they are codependent and good at keeping children alive, they are not good at growing or keeping a family together.
We need otium for the family to be together, which is a contradiction in capitalism because, in capitalism, the family should be working. Good, productive citizens they should be.
"Forced adherence to survival culture: the absolute embodiment of that is a child taking care of their family."
Like and commenting for the algo. Good topic as always. I liked the discussion around the post-left and capitalism being compatible. It really opens ur eyes as to why the left is non-existent today, it's mostly socdem and liberal left like in France. The left needs to stop giving up discourse that is being recaptured by the right. Nationalism can have leftist interpretations, protectionism, religion and so on too. The left needs a practical realist strategy in order to capture the masses and the hegemony. We need to stop giving ground to the right wing...
What do you think of Sara Wagenknecht's party in Germany, BSW, which did quite well in recent state-level elections in the former East Germany?
Idk really know how we can abolish the bourgeois family other than returning to the ACTUAL traditional family (grandparents, aunts, uncles, neighbors, all involved in raising the kids) and hoping it withers away like the state under communism.
I do suggest proletarianising stay at home parents tho. That means they are registered as jobs by the state, and are paid for their emotional and physical labor intensive position. They're provided labor unions by the state if the people haven't made them already.
I think this would terrify conservatives for the opposite reason, rather than the state taking away your kids, it's turning every family into a micro-state. This is especially offensive to them since we're turning mostly mothers (patriarchy's beasts of burden) into autonomous workers, with paid sick leave, right to strike, etc.
I worry this might cement traditional gender roles, since already women would have even more an incentive to go back to the kitchen so to speak. Eh, nothing a cultural revolution can't fix.
What do you think?
I think capitalism is already destroying the bourgois family lmao
@1DimeRadio fair enough, but would this system slow down, accelerate or have no effect on the elimination of the bougie family?
@@delly2088I have 2 daughters. I had more aunts and uncles than they have first cousins. They have practically have no extended family to speak of now. A lot of people I know or am acquainted with, come from families where the mother might for instance, had 5 children and only 3 grandchildren. Basically they have more kids than grandchildren. Our generation aren't having kids. There's no way back out of this and no way forward that I can see.
Idk dude... turning raising and supporting a family into just another waged job doesn't seem realistic to me. Are mom and dad gonna go on strike if the kids talk back or don't eat their peas? lol
@basstrip73 there will definitely regulations to prevent that, much stricter than those of other industries. My concern is more of mom being expected to cook, clean, teach, manage, shop, supply, fix, sex with dad and emotional support for the kids and dad for absolutely nothing in return besides the most basic physical needs. Those people have the right to go on strike and demand at the very least dad stops seeing the secretary and helps around the house more. If not then at the very least get paid for such labor intensive job, rather than pay raises for the husband, building dependency
1:31:31 eh! I just spent the whole last year doing a "self-becoming" project in my "free time"! It involved reading hundreds of books and almost dying a couple of times! 🤣😭
Quite a few "initiations"! One of them did involve something of an accidental "mutilation"! 💀
But why is Simpson in thumbnail?
I just needed an image to signify “the nuclear family” but I chose Simpsons because it captures the zeitgeist of 80s- 2000s regarding the decline of paternal authority. The Simpsons is almost like a parody of the modern family and the father figure. CCK philosophy has a good video on the Simpson s related to this.
i think "abolition" is a very misleading term in context of prison/police/family abolition. when "slavery abolition" means that people can't legally keep slaves, whereas family/police abolition does not mean that there will be no families or no police. it's more of rethinking/reforming than "abolition". somehow the leftist always know how to make the least appealing terms, like "dictatorship of the proletariat" etc, to instantly have a PR crisis. how you phrase things does matter, bc terminology does stick.
✊
This is my problem with the liberal elite
13:12 there are no paradoxes! Only dialectics!
Very valuable and interesting talk on family. I appreciate it. But without David Cooper (The Death of the Family) or Erich Fromm (Studies on Authority and Family), let alone Sanford’s F Scale (Authoritarian Personality), a talk in a Marxist framework about family is a novel thing. And mentioning Nietzsche without Max Stiner is also a new way of grasping Marxism. Marx must be turned around on his feet. Please see my two books: Digitalism vs. Capitalism (in English) and Authoritarian Personality in 13 Lessons (in Turkish). Family is not going anywhere. It is the biological bond. The class societies turned it into an inheritance machine of labor and wealth manufacturing authoritarian personalities functional in class societies. There is no proletariat or bourgeoisie family different from each other. They are both the microcosmos of the state. Engels was half wrong but very right at pinpointing the relations among the three mechanisms of class societies: family, private property, and state.
At least have haz on to explain his half too instead of just lobbing shit
Daniel Tutt seems like a nice buy but he has an all too common obsession with obscurantism being equal with profundity 1:14:00 Sometimes there is simply no 'there' there
Im not sure why people like Freud, from everything ive read or heard of/from him, makes him seem like the Jordan Peterson of his day
It's meant to be a foundation to understand how psychoanalysis evolved and became more complex.
It's like how in school biology we learn XY chromosome is for male and later learning about many variations to determine sex.
But reactionaries latch to simpler concepts so can demonise anything different concept as 'woke agenda' or whatever buzzwords right-wingers currently use
Psychoanalysis gives you a very useful framework of making shit up and sounding smart while doing it. Peterson is a jungian himself, so they stem from the same flock.
Jordan Peterson says the obvious to uneducated people and Freud revolutionized psychology, pointing out aspects that were never approached in the past by educated people. Basically the opposite of each other. Being right or not, Freud started asking the questions and his mistakes were also valuable to the evolution of psychology.
@@asgmto well said. My favourite remark about JP : " ... half of what he says is obvious the rest is made up...".
Sorry but you're an idiot.
Can you tell Daniel Tutt that there is a reason bibliography is at the end of the book.. You don't have to name-drop each and every author each time, just state your point, it's so annoying.
bad, quite bad