Skip to content

How Socialism Destroyed the Family Structure

Spread the love

Socialism Marxism


The very core tenet of Marxism and its two versions called socialism and communism is to actually replace the family structure. In Russian communism, Stalin was paranoid about any possible resistance. Children were taught that the state was their parent instead of their biological parents, and if those creatures spoke anything against the state then the children should report them. Karl Marx’s view on religion also explains his view of family. “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The lofty idea of socialism is appealing to many, but they never talk about what lies below the slogan and surface. The reason I say socialism is collapsing, not capitalism, is rather simple. We do not live under capitalism for that is what existed before socialism’s introduction with, actually, the Republican, Teddy Roosevelt using the label “progressive.” What enraged Marx so much was the British system of Long Lease keeping the property in the family for generations. This is why so many people fled to America after hearing that it was the American Dream to own your own home and leave it to your children. Marx was against the ownership of property outright under communism, whereas under socialism you could own your own property but you were taxed and regulated at every step of the way.

Under Canon Law of the Catholic Church, there was a substantial difference compared to English Common Law, which was manipulated for the benefit of the king. The stark difference between the two strikes very deep into the heart of family structure. Once upon a time, a spouse could not be compelled to testify against their partner. Over the years, the government cannot stop pursuing its own self-interest so the “right” not to be compelled to testify against your spouse has been watered down to only a “privilege,” which then allows government to create exceptions.

It is Federal Rule of Evidence 501 that governs these “privileges” that are not rights and they apply ONLY in a criminal case. Therefore, Rule 501 on Privilege in General is limited to the English common law “as interpreted by United States courts in the light of reason and experience” and that covers “specific non-constitutional privileges which the federal courts must recognize (i.e. required reports, lawyer-client, psychotherapist-patient, husband-wife, communications to clergymen, political vote, trade secrets, secrets of state and other official information, and identity of informer).” Note that there is no “privilege” for children who can be imprisoned on contempt of court if they refuse to testify against a parent in any matter. Child abuse is a special exception where one spouse can be compelled to testify against the other.

In 1983, American Bar Association-Criminal Justice Section created a draft a model to argue for the establishment of a parent-child privilege statute in hopes of protecting the immediate family unit. This decision was based on the concern that prosecutors were forcing children to testify against their parents before grand juries and at trials. This is very fundamental that if your children can be compelled to testify against you, then this keeps a separation between members of a family. Can you imagine forcing a child to testify where their father hid his gold? There is still no child privilege in American law illustrating there is still no respect for the core family structure, which classifies the United States in the same class as a totalitarian state with some of the worse dictators in history. The American Bar Association failed to move Congress to protect the American family. The state must ALWAYS come before the family as in Stalin’s communist world.

Article 248 of the French Civil Code states boldly: “No one can be summoned as a witness if he is a blood relation, or a relative by marriage in direct line, or husband and wife of one of the parties, even although divorced.” (C. PR. civ. art. 248, § 336 (G. Koch trans. 1963)). The relations included under Article 248: father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, son, daughter, grandson, granddaughter, brothers, sisters, brothers- and sisters-in-law, and the husband or wife of the accused, even if divorced. The law of West Germany has a similar provision that prevents what the Germans call unbefugt, or unauthorized disclosure (See ZPO § 52(3) (H. Niebler trans. 1965)). Swedish law also embodies a parent-child privilege as well (SWED. CODE JUD. P. ch. 36, § 3 (A. Bruzelius & R. Ginsburg trans. 1967)). A divorced spouse has the privilege under American law, but only for the period of the marriage, not before or after. Now you might ask why this is important since it only involves criminals. Don’t forget, we all commit three felonies a day and hiding your money, not paying taxes, and lying to any government officer is all “criminal” so we need not be concerned only with drug dealers, rapists, and murderers. A 13 year-old was arrested for trying to buy lunch in school with a $2 bill that the school never saw and neither did the police. It was genuine. You can be arrested to buying something with a counterfeit bill you didn’t know was counterfeit.

The law of Continental Europe emerged from the Catholic Church and canon law. The English common law departed from the Catholic Church and became all about the king, not family or God. The prevailing legal view under the civil law countries of Western Europe has been that no person will ever be forced to testify on confidences between any member and another family member. This historical overview stems from Roman law that the family unit was sacred. The very idea has complete immunity from compelled testimony existed for approximately 3,500 years and in Roman times included all household members including slaves.

Throughout history, such testimonial family immunity, including parent-child, are conspicuously absent in totalitarian regimes. Nazi Germany had no such privileges. Anyone could be compelled to testify against another family member. The Soviet Union had no parent-child or family type privilege. The mark of a totalitarian regime has always been the absence of any family immunity from compelled testimony about each other. The State has ALWAYS come before individuals. No family relationships are deemed private and free from the state’s intense scrutiny — NONE! This is the road down that the NSA has traveled, and under the American law there is no such family immunity from compelled testimony.

Without adoption of even a family privilege, the United States possesses the same totalitarian power to tear down the privacy of the family and turn brother against brother, child against parent, or sister against sister.