Sunday, November 28, 2021

Parent versus Child, new dialectic

Home Forums All Things Political Parent versus Child, new dialectic

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • Author
  • #76123


    Wanting to extend from a previous thread:

    I offer a new idea, not something I’ve read anywhere.

    Now I know that some say that postmodernism is always neo-liberal. I don’t agree, but I think discussing this could be very fruitful.

    Habermas seems to hold to something like this:

    I do use Habermas types of arguments for ground level politics. But my own views are more radical and confrontational.

    Again, this would be interesting material to discuss further.

    I go with Deleuze and Guattari, and many others, who insist that there is now only one class, the bourgeoisie. But there are those who support its interests, and those who do not. And then I say there is a lumpen proletariat, or underclass. But these are people who have been ejected from the bourgeoisie, not people who ever were part of a working class, as no such class still exists. And then there is an untouchable caste, people who do not even try to ‘work’, people who exist on the margins, on the street.

    So what makes the difference about the Lumpen’s is that they lack political consciousness. Though Franz Fannon breaks here with Marx and shows that this is not always so. This is what the Black Panthers went with.

    So to fight back you need a dialectic. So we had Marx and Engels:

    But that is now obsolete. So Deleuze and Guattari give us something in Anti-Oedipus, and they update and expand this in A Thousand Plateaus. Baudrillard gives us some ideas. And then Deleuze scholar Michael Hardt writes with Antonio Negri and gives us something in Multitude. And I’ll be reading their Commonwealth very soon. These works are all extremely helpful.

    But now, for the first time, I say that the primary conflict is parent vs. child, no longer bourgeoisie versus proletariat.

    So you look at the right and all they use are infantilizing parental arguments. And then anyone who resists ends up in jail, a mental hospital, or “In Recovery”, if not living under a bridge.

    So the way to fight back is to side with the child, and organize, and go on the war path.

    D and G say that parent v child arguments are always interest v desire. So we need to look at this. It’s in div 4 of Anti-Oedipus.

    Also very good:

    And then as to why people are not happy, after years of therapy, recovery, and medication? Well right there you have your answer.

    It is simply a matter of turning 180 degrees and joining in with the struggle. Severe consequences can be meted out and concrete gains can be made. I think most of all, implied in this is some sort of communalism or collectivism, and that is always the way to beat capitalism. So when one learns that they can organize and act and win some gains, they will be exuberant. But as long as they stay in therapy and recovery, they will continue to become more and more neurotic and be miserable.

    And also understand that with capitalism money and sex are pretty much the same thing, so if you challenge the rules about one, you are challenging the other. So when you can make gains on one side, you are making gains on the other.

    Simple ideas, simple program. So what do people think, and are they ready to attack parentalism and parents? I certainly am!


    Joey DeFrancesco Trio Live at Toronto Sky Festival July 2015


    How can you say that there is a capitalist class, but no working class? Who do you think is doing all the work?


    [quote=76123]So what do people think, and are they ready to attack parentalism and parents?[/quote]

    No. You do realize that we are mammals, right?


    Workers who have class consciousness are Working Class. Very few of them around though. Most workers are lower middle-class or underclass. They lack class consciousness. The underclass are de-classed, whereas the lower middle-class are just middle-class. Even if they just get starvation wages they still want what the middle-class wants and measure themselves by the same standards.

    Children kill parents at a rate of around 300 per year in the US. Parents kill their children at over 10 times that rate.

    Freud used this to justify parental authority. But in fact this need not be so. Support and socialization can be obtained all sorts of ways from the broader community. The middle-class family creates isolation and sentimentalization, and at never before seen level.

    Philippe Aries says that the middle-class invented childhood.

    The same ethic which creates the middle-class family also allows parents to absolve themselves of all responsibility. So this is one of those strategic points at which I intend to strike.

    Right now reading, recommend highly:

    So I say, ATTACK! Besides just going after psychotherapy / psychiatry, and after neo-liberalism, also go after middle-class parents. Prohibit child disinheritance as it now is in virtually every industrialized country, except for one. Find legal ways to resolve all parent – child conflicts in favor of the child by making the parents pay.

    End Muchausen’s By Proxy by holding the parents responsible.

    The underlying ethic here is that the middle-class lives in Bad Faith:

    That is, they have choices but they don’t want to admit it. One of the biggest is whether or not to have children. But they don’t want to admit this, so they use children, exploit them. Children are the exploited workers, expected to give the parents a legitimated social identity.

    Hard to stop this. But we can certainly make an example of the parents anytime there is any kind of a conflict.

    🙂 🙂 🙂


    P.S. ‘Mammals’ was the name given to our biological Class by middle-class reformers who wanted to encourage breast feeding and discourage the use of wet nurses. There are actually attributes which apply more completely to our bio Class than mammories. As always, names and concepts are used in biology so that they can then say that such and such is ‘natural’ and so prescribe how we are to live.


    If you leave an infant alone in the woods, that is murder, because human children take years to develop into adulthood and gain self-sufficiency. During that time, they need adults to care for them. That is why I think that your call for a war on parents is very strange.

    Workers who have class consciousness are Working Class. Very few of them around though. Most workers are lower middle-class or underclass. They lack class consciousness. The underclass are de-classed, whereas the lower middle-class are just middle-class. Even if they just get starvation wages they still want what the middle-class wants and measure themselves by the same standards.

    You haven’t explained why you think is so, or how you think this works. I’m well-aware that many working people, in the US at least, consider themselves to be “middle-class” (this is changing, by the way), but that doesn’t mean that they are. They can consider themselves flying spaghetti monsters, or anything else, but they are still being exploited by capitalists, and they are therefore still working-class in the Marxian sense.


    I inadvertently skipped over some of the points you made in your last post. I think that I actually agree with some of what you are saying there, such as the bits about disinheritance, the isolation of the nuclear family under capitalism, and the problem of parents exploiting children in various ways. For me, those messages are obscured by the rhetoric about “attacking” and “going after” so-called “middle-class” parents. And I do strongly disagree with your line about children having replaced workers as the new exploited class. Children certainly are exploited, and that needs to stop, but so does the exploitation of workers that this economic system is based on. I would argue that the former is a symptom and function of the latter. Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree.

    • This reply was modified 5 years, 7 months ago by uprising.

    Infants in the forest? Children need to be cared for, but this does not mandate the middle-class family and pedagogy manuals which objectify children.

    But as far as a war on parents, it is really against parentalism. But how do you think people end up in psychotherapy and psychiatry, and in recovery? It is simply the product of unredessed familial abuses.

    Most working people do not see themselves as working-class, so they do not have working-class consciousness, so they are not working-class. They are lower-middle-class, or they are underclass.

    What class you are, since the rise of the bourgeoisie, is based on how you think, not on what your income is or on what you do to get it.

    So pretty much what this comes down to is how the world is divided, at least in a place like the United States. There are those who go along with the middle-class family, with parentalism, and with its authority. You might call these 1st Borns. Though, not literally first born, they are the ones favored by the family system. It is not just your family or mine, it is how our society is stratified. So first borns are favored.

    But then there are black sheep. Most don’t understand why things are, they lack political consciousness. But some do understand. The black sheep is the one who can’t live the denial systems, because of the role it places them into. So it is a minority who want to fight back against the family, against parentalism.

    So you have this new dialectic, no longer bourgeoisies v. proletariat, it is parents v. children. It is parents who want to destroy the vitality of life in children. They do this in the family, and in psychotherapy, recovery, and religion, and so we have to organize, mobilize and strike back.



    First Borns versus Outcasts.

    This puts it better. I don’t mean literal first born, but those who are favored by the family system. And then outcasts, the unfavored. First borns are most likely to become parents themselves, but more importantly, they support parentalism and the middle-class family.

    Outcasts are stigmatized, but they might not be politically conscious.

    So the way to stand up to the First Borns is to publicly challenge them and humiliate them. P1-P9 Finally Outcasts will accept the stigma voluntarily and unify. P10. Then flight ensues, while defending one’s rear using extremely open rules of engagement.

    Hit them hard enough and the First Borns will never rise up again.

    This is how our world is today, First Borns versus Stimatized.


Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • The forum ‘All Things Political’ is closed to new topics and replies.