Capitalism Destroyed Family...

[5fish]

Capitalism destroyed the extended family in the West and gave us the nuclear family which is as unstable as Capitalism that forced it upon us. Yes, it was capitalism that drove our societies in the West into nuclear family units. As we lost the extended family support and moved to nuclear families worked while the mom stayed mom so the kids had loving adults around after school. Now, both parents work the extended family is gone and the kids come home to an empty home. Intuitively, we know that is wrong but today's capitalism demands both parents to work and the children be left on their own.

The unstable nuclear family is behind many ills of society. In the days, of extended multi-generational families the kids knew they had many loving adults to help in their times of need. The parents of the children had support in helping raise the kids easing the stress in their lives. Capitalism has forced the end of the family...

This article is wild...

Abolish the Family, Build our Communities: Why the Nuclear Family is Unsustainable and How to…

Introduction

c-sage.medium.com

The nuclear family exists as the primary capitalistic family structure. It represents the “core” family, the mother and father, and their children. It does not place emphasis on family outside of this, especially non-blood related families, but rather pushes all aspects of the family into a single household. This originated in 13th century England when “rather than remaining in or marrying into the family home, as was the case in Southern Europe and many parts of Asia and the Middle East, young couples in England were expected to establish their own household” (Institute). This unit has not done well for us. As David Brooks puts it “For those who are not privileged, the era of the isolated nuclear family has been a catastrophe. It’s led to broken families or no families; to merry-go-round families that leave children traumatized and isolated; to senior citizens dying alone in a room. All forms of inequality are cruel, but family inequality may be the cruelest”. This paper seeks to point out that cruelty, along with the ways that it is perpetuated in media, and the ways that creators can work to create a more community-based society.

Should the family go...

Why We Should Abolish the Family

The family is a conservative project that limits human flourishing. The family must be abolished.

www.currentaffairs.org

The social psychologist Erich Fromm wrote in his 1956 book The Art of Loving that “In the United States … to a vast extent, people are in search of ‘romantic love,’ of the personal experience of love that should lead to marriage.” But, according to Fromm, capitalist societies had commodified human relations, particularly the search for spouses, to the detriment of humans. He wrote about the marriage “market” of his time, in which people looked for the best “deal” of “personality packages.” We now have online dating, which ultimately turns dating into a market (you must pay for access to that market) where people and their profiles are like items on a menu to choose from. For Fromm, love was a way of being, an orientation, not primarily an attachment to another person or the possession of a certain status (a marriage and family). And yet, he argued, we spend so much time searching for someone to love rather than cultivating the art of loving as a practice involving “the active concern for the life and the growth of that which we love.”

To critique the family, then, is to level a critique of the conditions of a capitalist society that makes the nuclear family our main source of support and survival and that uses the family as a weapon to discipline or stigmatize those that don’t comply with traditional family structures or norms around gender and sexuality. In this sense, the family is, in O’Brien’s words, an “obstacle to human freedom.” The family must be abolished, which means a “breaking open of the family to free and unleash what’s good in it and to generalize that into the social body as a whole. To make the necessary forms of care available to everyone unconditionally.”

 

[5fish]

Here is an article on the topic...

The nuclear family has failed

There is nothing conservative about atomisation

unherd.com

Contemporary conservatives are especially inclined to embrace this image of the family, although it is not entirely clear why. The “nuclear family” is not the same as the traditional Christian or Jewish family that existed before the two World Wars. On the contrary, the nuclear family is closer to being an invention of industrialization and the 20th century.

I know that in many cases, these experiences were not always pleasant. Not everyone lives in a physical home that was built for such an experiment, and having to make a living and educate one’s children under such conditions has often been a genuine hardship. Yet in spite of these challenges, or rather, because of them, many have had their first glimpse of what a family, thrown together and having to rely on its own resources, is capable of achieving when it takes on a more extensive array of common purposes. In particular, many have experienced the kind of heightened cohesion that can come of it. In other words, many have had their first glimpse of what the family was like when it was a strong political institution, in which generations worked together to create a permanent community, very much resembling a little tribe or nation.

 

[rittmeister]

i love the smell of luddism in the morning

 

[5fish]

Here is some good leftist talk...

The Family Under Capitalism

Part One: A History of Women’s Oppression 3. The Family Under Capitalism One of the most significant changes to the family as an institution, which in turn had an important effect on the position of women in society generally, came about as a consequence of industrialisation and the rise of capita

www.socialistalternative.org

Poverty wages and insecure employment meant that it was impossible for individual working-class families to meet even the most basic needs of all of their members. They lived in desperate fear of being struck down by unemployment, sickness or disability. Children were malnourished and child mortality rates were extremely high. Women suffered countless pregnancies which ruined their health and they often died in childbirth. Prostitution flourished and old age could mean total destitution. In England, at the end of the 19th century, social investigators like Charles Booth lifted the lid on the terrible poverty of the working class. His report on the East End of London found that 35% were ‘poor’ and a third of those were suffering from acute ‘distress’. When mobilization took place for the Boer War the ruling class became acutely aware of how the physical condition of working-class men had been undermined by years of poverty and neglect. As many as 40% of men called up were deemed physically unfit to fight.2

 

[5fish]

It is time to bring back extended families' multi-generational family units... It goes against the individualist nature of our Capitalist societies... We are getting poorer and pooling resources is the only way to get ahead for the younger generations... Family units were as much an economical unit as it was a family... We could break up the family unit at the peak of our nation's shared wealth in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, because you could get jobs that paid the bills... Now, as no one can get any job that pays the bills, it is time to rethink the family unit as it was before the mid-20th century...

A thought...

 

[5fish]

I know but I think extended families become an investment tool... The Koreans have what is called a "KEH" an investment group... power of shame...

FOR KOREANS-AMERICANS, THE KEY TO SUCCESS IS 'KEH'

Dong Il Ahn will soon walk out of a festive dinner with $20,000, tax-free, interest-free, and he knows exactly what he's going to do with it. He's going to pump

greensboro.com

Whoever gets the pot in any given month provides a festive meal, either in their home or in a restaurants. When each member of the keh finally gets his money back, which in a 20-member keh would be in 20 months, the keh dissolves.

Each member must have utter confidence - almost inconceivable to Americans - that all the club members will continue to show up and pay their share every month, long after they have received their own payoff.

There is only one thing standing in the way of an individual's skipping out: Purposeful default would bring shame on not just the individual, but that person's family. It likely would lead to difficulty in getting a job among Koreans, or even getting a marriage partner.

If a business fails or the recipient of money has other financial setbacks that make it difficult to pay, it is assumed he will go to great lengths to borrow the money from a friend or relative or another member of the keh, or persuade someone else to take his place in the keh - anything rather than default.

``If you owe to someone personally, you will work the rest of your life to exonerate yourself,' said Ki Duck Choi, a member of the Korean Association of Greater Washington. ``It's a matter of face. The family name would go down the drain forever.'

The privations to be sure of payback are real, but the keh also offers an interest-free, tax-free, paper-work-free way for people with little or no credit history, or capital, or knowledge of the American banking system, or even knowledge of English, to accumulate substantial piles of money.

Secret To Korean Business Success -- Money-Lending Gives Immigrants An Edge | The Seattle Times

In the Seattle area, the Korean version, called a kye (pronounced "keh"), is thought to be most common among Asian cultures.

One person leads each kye, gathering 15 to 25 people who each contribute about $500 a month. The total typically reaches $10,000 and often $20,000.

There are two ways of distributing the money:

-- In a rotation kye, members take turns receiving the lump sum each month.

-- In a bidding kye, members submit bids for the amount they want. The lowest bid wins. The difference between the total and the bid is then distributed among the rest of the members.

With no contractual relationships - they rely on trust alone - kye are vulnerable to being broken. There have been cases in which the kye leader, who is the first to receive payment, flees with the money. In addition, sometimes members will collect their lump sum, then stop making monthly payments. Because sometimes members often only know their leader and not each other, it's hard to track down a delinquent member.

But Kenneth Lee, the president of the Korean Association of Washington, said members are, for the most part, trustworthy. He estimated fewer than five kye around Puget Sound have failed in the past 10 years.

The informal ties of kye members can be as binding as a signed loan agreement with a bank.

 

[5fish]

The Latin Americans have a similar group but it's to help with bills not really an investment group... call a tandas... shame again...

https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2014/04/01/292580644/lending-circles-help-latinas-pay-bills-and-invest

Here's an example of how a tanda works: Ten friends, family or co-workers get together, and each agrees to give $100 every two weeks to the group's organizer. One person ends up with the whole pot at the end of the month: $2,000. This goes on for 10 months until everyone gets the pot.

Everyone pays $2,000. Everyone gets $2,000. They're called tandas or cundinas, depending, in Mexico. Brazilians call them pandeiros; they're susus in West Africa and the Caribbean, and hui in Asia.

If you get the $2,000 early on in the process, it's a no-interest loan. If you get it later on in the cycle, the tanda acts as a savings account. Mayo says she used her first payout for expensive dental work, and she liked that the peer pressure kept her paying on time.

If she missed a payment, the consequence was letting down friends — a harsher penalty, to her, than a default notice from a bank. But, Mayo says, for some reason, only the Latinas at her job were into the idea.

 

[5fish]

This is interesting how people borrow money around the world... The article has charts and graphs... In rich nations, you use the system in poor nations you family and friends...

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/borrow-money-country-income-level/

With 81% of respondents borrowing from financial institutions, Canada tops this list. Meanwhile, Israel (80%), Iceland (73%), Hong Kong (70%), and South Korea (69%) are not far behind.

This is not surprising for richer nations, as financial services in these countries are more available and accessible. This, coupled with higher financial literacy, including a general understanding of interest rates and credit-building opportunities, contribute to the popularity of financial institutions.

Also, it’s worth noting that some countries have cultural practices that factor in. For example, 61% of respondents in Japan used formal financial institutions, which are a more socially acceptable option than asking to borrow money from friends and family (just 6% of people in Japan).

Afghanistan tops this list with 60% of respondents relying on friends and family, compared to only 2% borrowing money from formal financial institutions

Many individuals in African countries including Uganda (57%), Kenya (54%), Namibia (50%), and Morocco (49%) also are choosing to borrow money from friends and family over financial institutions.

These preferences can be attributed to various factors including a lack of trust in banking and financial institutions, lacking access to such services, or the lack of information about such services if they are available.

And in some societies, borrowing from friends and family can be seen as a cultural norm, especially in places where mutual support and solidarity play a strong role.

 

[5fish]

i love the smell of luddism in the morning

Is creating an investment house Luddism...???

 

[5fish]

Hey, I think it may be time to bring back Building and Loan associations... In the movie "It's a Wonderful Life " You know old George Bailey... They are gone today... Many became Credit Union... I need a house...

A short history building and loan associations - Marketplace

Econ Extra Credit newsletter #129

www.marketplace.org

Building and loan associations were financial institutions, and like banks, they offered loans and savings opportunities. They began as British building societies in the late 18th century, in which individuals pooled their money to finance home loans for members on a rotating basis. Once one member paid off his mortgage, another could secure a loan.

The original B&Ls disbanded or shut down after all their members had received one home loan, but later models offered new loans to new members on a continuous basis. Many Americans borrowed from B&Ls because national banks weren’t allowed to finance mortgages and state-chartered banks often required down payments of 60% or more. By 1930, B&Ls had 12.3 million members with close to $9 billion in assets, thanks to their more affordable mortgages.

Building and Loan Association (B&L): What it is, How it Works

Building and loan associations (B&Ls) were mutually held financial institutions that increased the accessibility of home loans from the 1830s to the 1930s.

www.investopedia.com

A B&L, also known as a thrift, gets its start when a pool of individuals agree to pay a membership fee and subscribe to a certain number of shares that have a predetermined maturity value. The members are then obliged to pay a certain amount each month until the maturity value of their shares had been reached.

If an individual took out five shares, each with a maturity value of $600, they would be able to take out a loan for up to $3,000. Because of limitations in the amount of capital these associations held, members would generally have to take turns—or, more specifically, outbid the other members—in order to take out a home loan. If they still owed money on the shares, they would continue to pay them off until the note was canceled.

The first B&Ls were structured as "terminating," or closed-ended plans that expired when all of the loans it made were repaid. However, by the mid-1800s, so-called "serial plans" came into existence, which periodically issued new shares that had their own termination date. Eventually, these gave way to "permanent plans," where members could join whenever they wished.

 

[5fish]

Here is a capitalist family-making contest.... Who could have the most babies in 10 years... Win big bucks...

Great Stork Derby

Charles Vance Millar - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Great Stork Derby - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[5fish]

 

[rittmeister]

View attachment 16955