It’s not hard to see that the role of the family in society is being challenged and belittled. But many of us do not realize the seriousness of the situation.  As early as the 19th century, communists were calling for the abolition of the family. The radical ideas of Marx and Engels have persisted to the present. Although few are willing to openly declare these things today, it is apparent that there is still an active campaign to destroy family relations.  And the danger is even greater now, because this cancerous movement marches on largely undetected. Looking at some of the bold statements of the early communist leaders, we can get a sense of their malicious intent.

From the Communist Manifesto, we read:

Karl Marx

“Abolition of the Family! … The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course…”

The socialists observed that in traditional society, there is widespread infidelity in marriage.  They used this as an excuse to promote legalized promiscuity:

“Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised community of women.”

According to Marx, parents in a communist society are to be denied the natural right and duty of educating their own children:

“Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.”

Engels wrote in Principles of Communism:

“Question 21: What influence will the communist order of society have upon the family?

“Answer: It will make the relations between the sexes a purely private affair which concerns only the persons involved, and calls for no interference by society. It is able to do this because it abolishes private property and educates children communally, destroying thereby the two foundation stones of hitherto existing marriage–the dependence of the wife upon her husband and of the children upon the parents conditioned by private property. This is an answer to the outcry raised by moralising philistines against the communistic community of wives. Community of wives is a relationship belonging entirely to bourgeois society and existing today in perfect form as prostitution. Prostitution, however, is rooted in private property and falls with it. Hence, the communistic organisation rather than establishing the community of women, puts an end to it.”

John Goodlad

We find many of these ideas being promoted today, especially the notion that the state has the duty of raising and educating children.   The Onion humorously addressed the topic in an article titled, “Increasing Number Of Parents Opting To Have Children School-Homed.”  But this issue is quite serious, and we can see that many Americans adhere to this philosophy.

In the 2001 book, “Developing Democratic Character in the Young,” edited by the influential education theorist John Goodlad, we read:

“…education is a task for both parents and state. The state, parents and children all have interests that must be protected…

“we are looking for balance…that will consider the interests of parents, state, and children.”

And after these deceptive statements, we find this bold pronouncement:

“Parents do not own their children. They have no ‘natural right’ to control their education fully.”

Wow. The author goes on to explain how the public schools are to be used to instill these democratic (i.e. socialist) ideas in children:

“[we can] protect against the loss of democratic values by insisting that all schools – public and private – teach these basic values, but ensuring that this is done requires careful supervision, and we may predict a new round of outraged complaints if government begins to monitor private schools in this way.  Instead of intruding heavily in the conduct of private schools, we might do better to stem their proliferation.”

John Locke

John Locke

I include these quotes as a reminder of what we are up against.  Truly, parents do have a natural duty to teach and raise their children.  John Locke, whose ideas influenced the development of the Constitution, explained:

“The power, then, that parents have over their children arises from that duty which is incumbent on them, to take care of their offspring during the imperfect state of childhood.  To inform the mind, and govern the actions of their yet ignorant nonage, till reason shall take its place and ease them of that trouble, is what the children want, and the parents are bound to [provide].” (as quoted in The 5000 Year Leap, pp. 286-287)

Locke goes on to explain that parents must not abdicate this responsibility to the state:

“The subjection of a minor places in the father a temporary government which terminates with the minority of the child…The nourishment and education of their children [during their minority] is a charge so incumbent on parents for their children’s good, that nothing can absolve them from taking care of it.”

  • Share/Bookmark