4 ms·

That's not really true. Marxism-Leninism famously sought to abolish the family and the Soviet union performed quite a few experiments in communal rearing of chi

That's not really true. Marxism-Leninism famously sought to abolish the family and the Soviet union performed quite a few experiments in communal rearing of children in it's early years. The reason why totalitarian regimes end up promoting traditional values relations is that to them the only imperative superior to ideology is survival. There is a reason the Soviet Union backed off from it's repression of religion in the middle of WW2.

kubb 2y ago
Early Soviet Union did try to reshape family, but it went back on it eventually, seeing the value of the conservative family model in building social cohesion and loyalty.
- lolinder 2y ago
  Expressed differently: they tried to abolish the family, found that doing so created more problems then they solved, and backed off in order to avoid tearing their country apart. They discovered that in some things doing nothing is better than doing something, but Westerners of all political stripes (both for or against authoritarianism) chronically make the mistake of assuming that everything that a totalitarian state does is done with some grand plan in mind rather than them just flailing about to find a centralized policy that kinda-sorta works. Your comment reminds me a lot of modern speculation about China's grand plans. Sometimes a government chooses not to touch something because they learned from bad experience that they'll break it if they do, not because they're playing 4D chess manipulating it behind the scenes.
  - kubb 2y ago
    I don’t think they ever tried to “abolish family”. Where are you getting this stuff? It sounds like bad history lessons. They did stuff like legalizing divorce, or collectivization of parenting.
    - jimbokun 2y ago
      You really want to go to bat for the Soviet Union?
      - kubb 2y ago
        Not really, just the notion that trying to abolish family is somehow the hallmark of totalitarianism doesn’t seem like sound reasoning, and indeed it isn’t confirmed by historical examples.
    - svieira 2y ago
      > 1918 Code on Marriage, the Family and Guardianship > One year after the Bolsheviks took power, they ratified the 1918 Code on Marriage, the Family and Guardianship. The revolutionary jurists, led by Alexander Goikhbarg, adhered to the revolutionary principals of Marx, Engels, and Lenin when drafting the codes. Goikhbarg considered the nuclear family unit to be a necessary but transitive social arrangement that would quickly be phased out by the growing communal resources of the state and would eventually "wither away". The jurists intended for the code to provide a temporary legal framework to maintain protections for women and children until a system of total communal support could be established. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_in_the_Soviet_Union#:~:text=One%20year%20after,could%20be%20established https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_in_the_Soviet_Union#:~:....
      - kubb 2y ago
        I hope that you can see this doesn’t say that they tried to abolish family, just weaken it. Additionally, in the totalitarian phase which started in the late 1920s, family was supported and strengthened: > the government of the Soviet Union first attempted to weaken the family and then to strengthen it from the 1930s onwards It’s clear as day isn’t it? Totalitarian regimes can very much be based on family values.
    - 331c8c71 2y ago
      Bolsheviks were absolutely pushing quite radical ideas on sex, rekationships and family in the early 20s e.g. Kollontai with her Glass of water theory. https://poloniainstitute.net/recommended/the-bolshevik-sexual-revolution/ https://poloniainstitute.net/recommended/the-bolshevik-sexua...
  - int_19h 2y ago
    I would argue that the main reason why USSR changed so spectacularly circa WW2 is because Stalin was personally very socially conservative in many ways. It wasn't just religion during WW2 - the country reverted to traditional gender roles in general in many ways, banned abortion, made homosexuality illegal again etc. Most of the early extreme experiments that really didn't work out were already long abandoned by then.
    - kubb 2y ago
      Dictatorship is very compatible with conservative values.
bccdee 2y ago
> the only imperative superior to ideology is survival I think it's more that well-meaning ideologues are easily replaced by self-serving pragmatists in post-revolutionary turmoil. There were plenty of Marxists in Russia vying for power, in the early days. Lenin didn't win based on ideological purity; he won based on political strength. And say what you will about Lenin—he did have beliefs and he did have a real ideology. Stalin only cared about Stalin, and he claimed to believe whatever was convenient for him in the moment.

kubb 2y ago

Early Soviet Union did try to reshape family, but it went back on it eventually, seeing the value of the conservative family model in building social cohesion and loyalty.

lolinder 2y ago
Expressed differently: they tried to abolish the family, found that doing so created more problems then they solved, and backed off in order to avoid tearing their country apart. They discovered that in some things doing nothing is better than doing something, but Westerners of all political stripes (both for or against authoritarianism) chronically make the mistake of assuming that everything that a totalitarian state does is done with some grand plan in mind rather than them just flailing about to find a centralized policy that kinda-sorta works. Your comment reminds me a lot of modern speculation about China's grand plans. Sometimes a government chooses not to touch something because they learned from bad experience that they'll break it if they do, not because they're playing 4D chess manipulating it behind the scenes.
- kubb 2y ago
  I don’t think they ever tried to “abolish family”. Where are you getting this stuff? It sounds like bad history lessons. They did stuff like legalizing divorce, or collectivization of parenting.
  - jimbokun 2y ago
    You really want to go to bat for the Soviet Union?
    - kubb 2y ago
      Not really, just the notion that trying to abolish family is somehow the hallmark of totalitarianism doesn’t seem like sound reasoning, and indeed it isn’t confirmed by historical examples.
  - svieira 2y ago
    > 1918 Code on Marriage, the Family and Guardianship > One year after the Bolsheviks took power, they ratified the 1918 Code on Marriage, the Family and Guardianship. The revolutionary jurists, led by Alexander Goikhbarg, adhered to the revolutionary principals of Marx, Engels, and Lenin when drafting the codes. Goikhbarg considered the nuclear family unit to be a necessary but transitive social arrangement that would quickly be phased out by the growing communal resources of the state and would eventually "wither away". The jurists intended for the code to provide a temporary legal framework to maintain protections for women and children until a system of total communal support could be established. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_in_the_Soviet_Union#:~:text=One%20year%20after,could%20be%20established https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_in_the_Soviet_Union#:~:....
    - kubb 2y ago
      I hope that you can see this doesn’t say that they tried to abolish family, just weaken it. Additionally, in the totalitarian phase which started in the late 1920s, family was supported and strengthened: > the government of the Soviet Union first attempted to weaken the family and then to strengthen it from the 1930s onwards It’s clear as day isn’t it? Totalitarian regimes can very much be based on family values.
  - 331c8c71 2y ago
    Bolsheviks were absolutely pushing quite radical ideas on sex, rekationships and family in the early 20s e.g. Kollontai with her Glass of water theory. https://poloniainstitute.net/recommended/the-bolshevik-sexual-revolution/ https://poloniainstitute.net/recommended/the-bolshevik-sexua...
- int_19h 2y ago
  I would argue that the main reason why USSR changed so spectacularly circa WW2 is because Stalin was personally very socially conservative in many ways. It wasn't just religion during WW2 - the country reverted to traditional gender roles in general in many ways, banned abortion, made homosexuality illegal again etc. Most of the early extreme experiments that really didn't work out were already long abandoned by then.
  - kubb 2y ago
    Dictatorship is very compatible with conservative values.

bccdee 2y ago

> the only imperative superior to ideology is survival I think it's more that well-meaning ideologues are easily replaced by self-serving pragmatists in post-revolutionary turmoil. There were plenty of Marxists in Russia vying for power, in the early days. Lenin didn't win based on ideological purity; he won based on political strength. And say what you will about Lenin—he did have beliefs and he did have a real ideology. Stalin only cared about Stalin, and he claimed to believe whatever was convenient for him in the moment.