A Marxist Re-Definition of the Family
David Horowitz, a “red diaper baby” (that is, raised by Communist parents), as well as a post-diaper, fully-committed, red Marxist student leader at Berkeley in the 1960s, is now an intellectual Jewish agnostic, whose recent book, Dark Agenda: The War to Destroy Christian America, exposes the Left’s hatred of Christianity. This non-Christian academic is struck by the Left’s deliberate undermining of America’s Christian foundations, for which Horowitz, in later life, developed a deep admiration. He notes that God is consistently omitted from public discourse, and that children are no longer taught Early American History. This de-Christianizing system is working. He convincingly states: “If you do not know where you come from, you do not know where you are going.” How true this is for our millennial generation. He cites the leftist humanist, John Dunphy, who observes unapologetically: “The battle for mankind’s future must be waged in the public school classroom, which must become an arena of conflict between…the rotting corpse of Christianity and the new faith of humanism.”
Horowitz unexpectedly cites the influential ideas of an early Christian heretic, Pelagius, (AD 354 – 418) who believed humans were born good. This, notes Horowitz, is the same belief that characterizes both present-day progressivism and the ideals of Marx and Lenin, convinced as they were that human beings can create a this–worldly utopian society. (All such attempts have to this day become hell on earth.) Horowitz admires the realism and honesty of the original Puritans, who affirmed that since human beings are flawed, their political creations are similarly flawed and thus in need of democratic checks and balances. In January 2009, ex-Marxist Horowitz heard rumbling echoes of the dangerous utopian optimism he knew from his youth. In that year, in his presidential address, Barack Obama promised to “fundamentally transform America.”
The transformation of the family is of essential importance to “progressive” neoMarxism. Marx, and later Engels, sought to destroy the Western Christian notion of the natural family in order to put in its place the all-powerful state. Marxists argue that the nuclear family teaches passive acceptance of hierarchy/patriarchy at the behest of Capitalism by acting as an independent island within culture of independent thought and practice. It is also the institution through which the wealthy pass down their private property to their children, thus reproducing class inequality.
NeoMarxism has inherited this rejection of the family but now espouses an even more radical revolution by redefining sexuality in toto. It states: “Being queer is more than sleeping with a person of the same gender…it means transforming the very fabric of our society…the goal [is the] radically reordering [of] society’s view of family.’ This, you could say, is part of the “fundamental transformation” of present society. This, alas, is what “conservative” leaders failed to see when they enthusiastically endorsed the Supreme Court’s decision to legalize homosexual marriage, proudly seeing it merely as the addition of one more category of civil rights to good old American democratic fairness. They have failed to see that this is neoMarxism’s use of this new sexual ideology, thereby lending additional power to Marxism’s long-term intention to destroy the family. This vision seeks to undermine the millions of normal mums and dads with kids in “natural” families for the sake of a miniscule percentage of people driven by a sexual ideology that Scripture calls a “unnatural” (Romans 1:26). In the revolution, natural families must become unnatural.
Lenin might be called the first radical feminist, since he was committed to upending the husband/wife and father/mother roles of the natural family. He advocated freeing women from their enslavement to the perpetual care of children by creating community-based “parenting.” Such communes would successfully undermine the classic understanding of the family. It is not surprising that contemporary neoMarxist feminists are intrigued by Lenin’s model.
Covid-19: An Occasion to Dismantle the Family
Writing in her aptly entitled article, “The coronavirus crisis shows it’s time to abolish the family,” she states: “Nuclear households…are where we are all intuitively expected to retreat in order to prevent widespread ill-health.” But, “the home” does not work for “queer and feminized people.” As seen by this committed neoMarxist, the nuclear family is the place where ideological brainwashing occurs via “the power asymmetries of housework (reproductive labor being so gendered), of renting and mortgage debt, land and deed ownership, of patriarchal parenting and (often) the institution of marriage—a situation that hands near-infinite power to those with the upper hand over a home.” “Households,” she declares, “are capitalism’s pressure cookers.” The nuclear family is “training us to be inhabitants of a binary-gendered and racially stratified system, training us not to be queer.” Here “queerness” interlocks ideologically with classic Marxism. The title of a review of Lewis’s thought says it all: “Want to dismantle capitalism? Abolish the family” (Nation, 2019).
At the beginning of the twentieth century, Marx and Engels demanded that children be the wards of state, which would take over their parenting in order to brainwash the rising generation into classic Marxism. This same organizational principle, if applied, would not only achieve feminist ideals, but normalize abnormal sexual behavior and identities.
This is very clearly stated in the thought of another neoMarxist, lesbian feminist, M. E. O’Brien. She finds as a useful model the “commune” described by the 19th century French socialist, Charles Fourier, whom Marx read closely. Fourier described the commune as “collective domestic units” comprising 200 to 250 people. According to Fourier, “the free love of the commune would be among its greatest appeals, and soon no one would be drawn back to the hypocritical horror of the conjugal family.” Fourier believed “love will thus become one of the most brilliant mainsprings of the social mechanism.” O’Brien continues: “Since the nuclear family comes with “the risk of internal abuse, violence, and hetero-normativity, in communes, all [members] share the work of care. [Communes]…create new shared forms of intimacy and friendship, where polyamorous relationships could be more common…. [They] open new avenues for contesting gender and sexual relations, and can work to directly challenge the atomized, household structure of the nuclear family.” The group would care for any children issuing from these amorous relationships, and the children could change parents occasionally.
Revolution: The Necessary Tool for Global NeoMarxism
O’Brien is realistic. She admits, though does not say why, that without wide cultural affirmation, communes created in a capitalist society would eventually collapse. Thus “the commune can only survive under the conditions of global communization.” To achieve such a worldwide, commune-based goal requires, of course, a “generalized insurrection.” “To survive as the basis of freedom, the commune must be a part of a broader and successful effort to…defeat the class enemies of the revolutionary struggle.” The ideal “home” that must be developed for everyone is dependent upon a political Marxist revolution (which, in the past, has always been bloody). Once established, a totalitarian communist administration must maintain it.
O’Brien’s solution comes with a subtle, though typical, Marxist warning: Individual freedom is forbidden. “Those family householders most resistant to self-abolition—white property owners, abusive patriarchs, homophobes and others most invested in the normative family—would need to be challenged through feminist, queer and communist struggle, both within their families and in the broader society.” O’Brien does not define what the “challenge” would entail.
The revolution is total, and ultimate human liberation at the deepest level requires changeable gender.
Gender liberation is an essential feature of creating a new basis for communist human well-being…gender could become what is already prefigured in trans experience: a form of expressing subtle personal truth, the beauty and richness of human expression, and the wielding of aesthetics, eroticism and personal fulfillment.
Our culture lauds contemporary progressive ideas as the high morality of individual choice. Yet, we can easily comprehend what will happen to a culture that is systematically brain-washed into eliminating any notion of absolute right and wrong. Will those who devalue life through abortion, who seek to destroy religious liberty by “challenging” Christians, who undermine the family and marriage by promoting LGBT causes, who find generalized sexual fornication perfectly normal, and who are not committed to truth-telling because the end justifies the means—will these fellow citizens have the desire, character, and ability to establish a truly just and humane society that maintains respect and tolerance for all? Such all-knowing demi-gods claim to “know the end,” namely that there is no such thing as absolute truth.
There is a reason why neoMarxism, appearing as a mere political ideology, is so focused on the destruction of the family and the promotion of sexual libertinism. Many have believed that Marxism is a classic expression of the ideology of secularism, and that this movement’s success in the twentieth century is the worthy work of notable secular humanist intellectuals who have captured the Western universities and the intellectual elite with the power of their ideology. Sociologist Mary Eberstadt, however, says: “Not so fast.” She shows that cultures lose their belief in God not so much by the intellectual power of secular humanism as by the abandonment of traditional, natural family structures.
Marx and Engels doubtless knew what they were doing in undermining the family. They were ultimately seeking to undermine people’s belief in God. This is where our own culture is headed and where the battle must be engaged. Our culture cannot normalize homosexuality and redefine marriage and family, which it has done in the last few years, without losing the good Creator’s humanizing notions of male and female, and of father and mother and of the natural family. Should this movement succeed, the destiny of our children and grandchildren will be life under a Oneist, godless, totalitarian rule of self-appointed, “all-knowing” communist tyrants, mere sinful human beings, proudly sitting in the place of God, denying his existence in everything they do. In so doing we will lose the essential and noble calling for all human beings to live according to the heterosexual (unity in difference) image of the Twoist Trinitarian God (Gen 1:27), and the ability to hear the gospel call of our Savior Jesus to come home. In the day he returns, or the day we die, we will join in the marriage supper of Christ and his church. In the mean time, created heterosexual marriage is God’s best picture of his love for us, and we must not abandon it until the day it is replaced by the Savior himself.
 David Horowitz, Dark Agenda: The War to Destroy Christian America (Humanix, 2019).
 Brian Farmer, “Anti-Christian Agenda,” The New American (Humanix, 2020).
 Farmer, “Anti-Christian Agenda.”
 The meaning of this “fundamental transformation” is never clear because the mainstream media oddly never did any research on Obama’s background. However, it has become known that Obama was significantly influenced in his early years by Marxist thinking, and appointed to his administration many with deep Marxist commitments. According to Paul Kengor, Takedown: From Communists to Progressives: How the Left Has Sabotaged Family and Marriage (WNDE Books, 2015), 11, the legalization of “gay marriage” is an essential part of Barack Obama’s “fundamental transformation,” making him the “first Gay Marriage President.”
 Richard Weikert, “Marx, Engels, And The Abolition of the Family,” (Elsevier Science, LTD 1994):https://www.csustan.edu/sites/default/files/History/Faculty/Weikart/Marx-Engels-and-the-Abolition-of-the-Family.pdf
 Ettelbrick Paula. Since When is Marriage a Pathway to Liberation? In Baird, Robert M; & Rosenbaum, Stuart 1997. Same-Sex Marriage: The Moral and Legal Debate. New York: Prometheus Books, 168.
 Sophie Lewis, Full Surrogacy Now: Feminism against Family (Verso, 2019).
 Lewis, “The coronavirus crisis shows it’s time to abolish the family: What does the pandemic tell us about the nuclear family and private household?” Open Economy (24 March 2020).
 Lewis, “Coronavirus.”
 Lewis, “Coronavirus.”
 Rosemarie Ho, “Want to dismantle capitalism? Abolish the family.” (Nation, 2019).
 O’Brien quotes Fourier from his 1808 The Theory of the Four Movements. Eds. Gareth Stedman Jones & Ian Patterson (Cambridge University Press, 1996).
 Cited in O’Brien, https://pinko.online/pinko-1/communizing-care.
 See the observations of John Biver, “Socialism Was Both an Economic and a Moral Tragedy,” BarbWire (28 July, 2014).
 Mary Eberstadt, “How the West Really Lost God: A New Look at Secularization,” Policy Review (June/July, 2007).