Patriarchy (through marriage) maintains the oppression of women and children, as they have less control over resources and are therefore less powerful. In a truly Marxist society, family must go – or at least family as defined as father, mother and their children.

For Parsons, the education system helps society to be meritocratic. The education system teaches people the value of making an effort, because effort is rewarded. That is useful in itself but it also, according to Parsons, ensures that people end up performing the social roles to which they are best suited.

Economic role of education—teaching skills for work Functionalists say school teaches literacy, numeracy, and vocational courses, which aim to train young people for the world of work. Education therefore prepares young people for their future occupational (job) roles and this benefits the economy.

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.

Marxism, in effect, tends to see itself as a kind of aufgehoben Romanticism—an outlook on life, in other words, that has at once negated, transcended, and preserved the Romantic viewpoint. But what it purports to transcend are the tendencies that defused the revolutionary potential of the Romantic view.

Arguably the most infamous demand of The Communist Manifesto is the “abolition of the family.” The family, Marx and Engels noted, was where patriarchy and capitalism worked in tandem to produce willing, alienated workers, where women became little more than “instruments of production” for the men who lorded over them.

Freedom consists in converting the state from an organ superimposed upon society into one completely subordinate to it; and today, too, the forms of state are more free or less free to the extent that they restrict the “freedom of the state”.

Abolition of private property means stripping billionaire investors of the ability to get rich from our labor (and taking away their political power, as well)–just like the abolition of slavery was the abolition of private property in human beings. As for the quote from Chairman Mao, it had some truth in his context.

MARX- WHAT DO MARX AND ENGELS MEAN WHEN THEY SAY COMMUNISM INTENDS TO DO AWAY WITH CAPITAL? LABORERS DO NOT EARN CAPITAL EVEN THOUGH THEY PRODUCE IT; WHATEVER THEY PRODUCE IS TAKEN AWAY FROM THEM AND USED TO EXPLOIT THEM LATER.

Marx moves to the arguments against the “infamous” Communist proposal of abolishing the family. Communists are also criticized for their desire to abolish country and nationality. Marx replies that workingmen have no country; and we can’t take from them what they don’t have.

Marx then responds to a number of criticisms from an imagined bourgeois interlocutor. He considers the charge that by wishing to abolish private property, the communist is destroying the “ground work of all personal freedom, activity, and independence”(96).

They believed the capitalist system would fail because everyone was working for their personal gain. Unlike the socialist system where everyone worked for the good of the public.