Abolir la famille: Capitalisme et communisation du soin

by M.E. O'Brien

M. E. O'Brien retrace la longue histoire des luttes menées pour dépasser le cadre de la famille privée. Elle décrit l'évolution de la politique familiale du capitalisme racial dans les villes industrielles d'Europe, les plantations esclavagistes et la frontière coloniale de l'Amérique du Nord, à travers l'essor et le déclin de la famille construite autour de la femme au foyer. De Marx à l'insurrection noire et queer, en passant par les mobilisations de masse récents, O'Brien décèle les mouvements révolutionnaires à la recherche de meilleures façons d'aimer, de s'occuper des autres et de vivre.

Genres: Nonfiction, Politics, Feminism, Sociology, Queer, Social Justice, Family

336 pages, Paperback

First published April 20, 2023

Reviews

[Corvus · Rating 5 out of 5]

Anyone who has followed my reviews likely knows by now that I have mixed feelings about academic texts, especially queer theory and the like. I often find them to be deliberately inaccessible, often discussing communities with the least access to the kind of vocabulary one needs to understand a single sentence. Sometimes a book comes along that straddles the line between academia and accessibility quite well. I found Family Abolition: Capitalism and the Communizing of Care by M. E. O'Brien to be one such text. The book will be rewarding to academics or others who frequently immerse themselves in nonfiction reading while also being readable both stylistically and regarding vocabulary. Someone unfamiliar might need to google here and there, but overall, the book emphasizes the arguments therein rather than the biggest most obscure words that can be used to make those arguments. This book challenged the way I thought about some things, validated others in ways I did not realize I needed, and offers a great deal of imaginative praxis in terms of reaching the goals set out by the author. The book is also very well organized.

This review is years after the publication date because this book and I got off to a rough start. My attempts at the PDF ARC version (I usually get hard copies or ebooks) made reading too impossible and I abandoned it for a while. I am glad I was able to return to it in another format later as it is one of the better and more original nonfiction texts that I have read.

I am actually quite estranged from most of my blood relatives, though that is something I am working on changing at the moment. Still, I did have a slight knee jerk reaction to this subject that many people may have. The Family is something woven deeply across cultures and holds great power almost everywhere in its own way. One may think of abolishing such a structure as to mean taking away the very foundation many need to survive and have relationships. O'Brien acknowledges this inevitable reaction early on. She then effectively argues that abolishing the family does not involve taking away safety, security, cooperation, nurturing, etc, but rather adding them (or creating them for the first time in some situations.) O'Brien exemplifies this through an excellent and well researched history of the intersection and interplay between the Family and Capitalism as well as other forms of oppression.

Aside from teaching me many things I did not know about this history, one thing that stood out to me most in this book was the criticism of communities. I have always sort of blamed solely myself for my isolation, yet O'Brien discusses the phenomenon of older organizers/activists/counterculture community members etc becoming isolated through age, disability, etc as a very common problem. I still believe I could have done a much better job working on relationships in my past, but it was interesting to read that there is more to it. The argument is essentially that communities fail because capitalism causes them to and the family helps capitalism in this task. When community always ends up secondary to the family, even for those without one, communities will fall apart socially, financially, distance wise, or any other number of ways. Without fighting capitalism and other oppressions including the family, things disintegrate and fall apart. Using (antiauthoritarian) Marxist and other arguments- including also criticism of Marx and others' oppressive flaws and prejudices- the author discusses how the focus needs to be on the commune rather than the community.

O'Brien offers extensive descriptions of what the commune is, why it is important, what it and its components look like, and how they could be implemented. To tackle a rehashing of said arguments would make this review far too long. I can say that I was already on board with some things and became convinced about the others that I had not been aware of yet. I hate to admit it as an anarchist, but I am terribly misanthropic and pessimistic at times. I have a difficult time believing in utopias where everyone cooperates that do not- at best- fall apart. O'Brien's discussion of both the failure of community and an all-inclusive commune, ripe with strategies for tackling harm and conflict, felt much more realistic to me than many things I have read. I might have found a disagreement here and there, but they were far fewer than other such proposals.

It is clear that O'Brien created a very complex but believable whole with this book. She covers the past, present, and future in honest and accurate ways. I won't pretend that I cease to be pessimistic, as that is generally my baseline. But, this book made many things I think about and desire actually seem possible. All of this is to say that Family Abolition isn't just about critiquing and dismantling "The Family." It is about creating something better and more enriching it its place- something critical texts often fail to do properly. While critiques alone definitely have their place, this one won't leave you thinking, "Well, then what? Now what?" when you reach the end. It did not surprise me to find an optimistic speculative fiction about a future commune in her repertoire when I looked into the author. Needless to say, I look forward to giving that a read as well, hoping that O'Brien is one of the few whose academic writing skills are not at odds with her fiction ones.

This was also posted to my storygraph and blog.

[Mel · Rating 3 out of 5]

As a reminder, in my very subjective rating system, three stars means I would recommend it to some people with caveats.

I profoundly agree with O'Brien that the nuclear family is a fundamental building block of our oppressive society - that it is designed to reproduce class privilege, misogyny, and heteronormativity - that it is a site of abuse and violence for many of us. That's why conservatives fight for it so hard.

I also agree that anytime you have to rely on a person or persons for survival it is fundamentally coercive. If you can't leave without risking starving to death. That isn't free and it's not love.

It is undoubtedly true that the nuclear family cannot actually take on the entire responsibility for everything we expect it to without other people serving it and that this is crushing women particularly and poor women most of all.

I learned a lot from the parts that broke down Marx's blind spots and talked about other communist thinkers. I'll probably read a bit more of them directly. While it was definitely not O'Briens intention, it really clarified for me more of the reasons why I have always been so so turned off by Marxists. (I do despise being defined primarily as a worker, the evangelical universalism, and the lumpenproletariat bullshit so very much).

I find the ideas about the possibilities in "insurgent social reproduction" in protest camps interesting. Communization theory seems interesting. But sometimes I got the feeling that the theory kind of picks up where anarchist insurrectionists leave off. Not my favorite branch of anarchy.

I very much appreciate emphasis on all the people who fall through the cracks - those abandoned by their families, runaways...but I'm truly mystified how there is zero mention of youth liberation. It is such a glaring absence.

Also glaringly absent is any understanding of adoption. It is mentioned once as a negative in relation to indigenous people taken from their families and once as a positive in relation to the new cuban family law. Then there is this whole description of an imaginary nightmare scenario where the state just starts taking children from people and it's pretty much what actually happens if you add private agency and religious institution next to state. Truly infuriating.

Also infuriating, a total lack of critique of religion or religious institutions. In fact, they make some sort of religious exemption for people who don't want to be in the commune. Like religion has not been equal to the patriarchal family in keeping oppression alive?!? Sigh.

Despite clearly having an understanding that there are other forms of family than the white nuclear family and clear descriptions of how the state attacks them, they don't really integrate it well enough to be convincing. Or maybe it's more accurate to say that, in the end, are really just talking about the ideal size of a unit, what the boundaries and expectations are, and what freedom we have to leave. "Family" means too many things to people for abolishment to be an easy sell. And everything else just expands the boundaries. Which is great. But better to just say that. And really, not even the book is consistent in how it talks about "chosen family."

Not that I'm against provocative language. But I tend to use it as a litmus test for who is open minded, not a call to action.

I'll stop there. Clearly, the book made me think. It helped me clarify a few things. I'm glad people are thinking about this and I hope to see more.

[Tam · Rating 4 out of 5]

mi frase respuesta a todo: abolish the family

[Majić Vusilović · Rating 5 out of 5]

I had very high expectations of this book and I was right, because it's fantastic as well as exciting, well written and comprehensive take (not only) on family abolition. Everyone who got introduced to the topic via Sophie Lewis should read it. I myslef found many answers to the questions I was struggling with when it comes to family abolition and the communization of care. What I admire most and what found particularly inspiring is author's confident and unpretentious tone. I think this book will be my favorite feminist piece of writing this year.

[kathleen]

i liked this book a lot i thought it was really beautiful!!
it was nice to read & think about questions of social reproduction and care in a more rigorous way! the book asks how human life can be reproduced without the family/state/wage, and how we can access care beyond the form of the private household. i thought chapter 7 on the workers' movement was really interesting, i've become so used to the rhetoric and demands of a workers movement that i prob haven't thought very hard or critically about it lol

i think i'm not that into communization theory but it was interesting to read about!

a quote:
"That tie of love is at the heart of justice, of the struggle for a free world. The affirmation of family abolition is the demand that this love be a universal and unconditional basis for a social order that extends to include everyone. Yes, we all deserve love. Yes, we all deserve help. Yes, we all deserve to survive. Yes, we will defend each other. Yes, we will keep us safe."

[Fiorella · Rating 5 out of 5]

c’est l’un des meilleurs livres que j’ai lu cette année pour l’instant. sur le sujet de l’abolition de la famille, il complète très bien les écrits de sophie lewis (qui est d’ailleurs citée à plusieurs reprises) avec un ton plus accessible et un plus grand focus historique sous le régime du capitalisme (marx, engels, kollontaï, fourier, hooks, griffiths et gleeson, haraway…).
c’est trop cool de pouvoir aborder le sujet de l’abolition de la famille sous le prisme de la théorie communiste et je pense que ce livre est une très bonne introduction au sujet, aussi parce que l’autrice prend le soin d’interroger les angoisses que génère le terme "abolition" et d’y répondre. la troisième et dernière partie m’a particulièrement touchée et inspirée, car pleine d’espoir et d’optimisme - ce que je retrouve pas forcément dans ce genre d’ouvrages. bref trop contente de cette lecture et maintenant j’ai envie de lire son roman de fiction spéculative « everything for everyone » !

[Chidi · Rating 5 out of 5]

An amazing book on Family Abolition. She not only speaks of the the harms and horrors built into the family, but on how we can free care work from the family and make it accessible to everyone. I really enjoyed reading her analysis on Communization and this book is the perfect companion to her co-authored novel “Everything For Everyone: A Oral History of the New York Commune”. Let’s communize the world together!

[Alba Lafarga · Rating 4 out of 5]

boníssim. m’ha agradat molt com tracta totes les qüestions des de diferents perspectives i amb molt aprofundiment. després de llegir diferents autores sobre abolició de la família m’encanta veure l’enorme generositat entre totes les autores, com constantment es mencionen i pots seguir el fil de pensament conjunt ❤️‍🩹

[lukas · Rating 4 out of 5]

woke, but not woke enough

[Daniel · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very insightful. At its best, this book is a compelling analysis and understanding of the family, the history of family abolition as an idea, and of the ways that family intersects with capital, racism, and other oppressive social forces. At its worst, it is an interesting insight into a potential solution, even if if it is one which I struggle to agree with.

O'Brien has a very firm grasp on family, and how its presence as a social institution harms women, children, people of colour, and those of other oppressed identities the most. The focus on aging and disability is very refreshing, but there was a lack of how to truly empower children and teenagers and the ways that they also have their independent agencies ignored and/or removed. Outside of a few select mentions, which, if I am being critical, mainly boil down to the other adults involved can intervene, it feels like a missed topic.

Similarly, I am not convinced by communisation as a way to reimagine and reconstruct society in a communist way. As argued in the book, it seems remarkably small-scale and local. Sometimes, this was acknowledged as leaving potential for relapse into oppressive social and capital relationships, but it didn't really feel firmly acknowledged, which is a shame. It was still interesting to hear the argument from someone with communisationalist sympathies, at the very least.

[Kiki Tapiero · Rating 5 out of 5]

An important point of clarity is that this author is talking about abolishing the capitalist, private family. I think she's right that Family Abolition might be a harsh sounding phrase, but she does such a good job of defining it. She goes through several periods of history and different countries to investigate how family reproduce class disparity, gendered dynamics, and is a form of racism / settler colonialism. The author also sets out beautiful visions of her own and other writers of what communization looks like, and deeply inspired my own vision of what I want my community to look like. She does a good job at describing limitations of chosen family and other proxies for communes, and really brings home the point that true abolition of dependent relationship structures will come with abolition of capitalism.

[Izzy Tonneson · Rating 4 out of 5]

You should’ve seen the look of disappointment on the face of the employee at the Salt Lake Barns and Noble help desk when I showed him the title of this book.
Apparently, mormons are not proponents of queer theory or reimagining the family unit. I played it off as “assigned” reading. He didn’t need to know that this book was assigned to me by me.

In my work, I propose that thru-hiking “trail families” are theoretical praxis for an alternative to the nuclear family. My argument itself—that thru-hiking requires us to form deeply interdependent, caring kinships — is not that radical, although the queer liberation and Black liberation theory I cite often is.

I was shopping for a book that offer a critique of the violence that occurs within the privatized family. The “violence” inherent in the family ideal is twofold: 1) the family ideal is rooted in upholding the image of the white American family 2) for many the family is a source of oppression and abuse.
Part I of O’Brien’s text argues that the nuclear family structure inherits damaging aspects of capitalism— childcare is expensive, and for the poor, that labor often falls upon feminized members of the household. (The wealthy, by contrast, can afford to send their kids to camps in the summer, hire a nanny, pay for retirement homes, etc.) Thus, the privatized family allows feminized labor to go unpaid. O’Brien also argues in support of the Reproductive Labor Theory. This part in particular echoes The Caliban and The Witch (although, O’Brien does not cite Silvia Federici directly).

Family “abolition” does not mean abolish all family structures; it means abolishing the aspects of the ideal family unit that are inherently rooted in white supremacy and the oppression of the poor. In Part III, O’Brien turns toward solutions for developing kin-relationships outside of the biological family. She discusses “chosen family” as rooted in the traditions of queer and Black kinship, and this part also is relevant to my work.

Overall, I loved this book. Super easy to read with well-substantiated arguments. I took a ton of hand written notes while on the plane to visit Kai, but…

Other interesting points:
1. CPS disproportionately targets Black, poor households.
2. O’Brien has a chapter called “lines of flight” = a phrase for leaving the family unit. By total happenstance, my opening vignette is called “Flight Risk,” about literally running away from my home and family. There’s an obvious metaphoric resemblance to “lines of flight” that I think would be interesting to explore in later expansions of my thesis. (might not have time right now)
3. I love the discussion that the nuclear family operates under the assumption of “unconditional love,” and that we are “chosen” by our family members because we are family. What happens to those of us who are not “chosen”?
4. Her anecdote about Melania and Donald Trump smiling while posing with a baby who had just lost his parents to a racially charged mass shooting was extremely poignant.

[In_Mart · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Notre abolition de la famille nomme et tente de décrire les actions nécessaires pour surmonter la société de classes, en se concentrant sur la manière dont une transformation révolutionnaire plus large pourrait remodeler nos vies personnelles. Ce n'est pas un programme, ni un plan à mettre en œuvre, encore moins un slogan rassembleur. C'est une façon de réfléchir à ce qu'une société libre pourrait signifier dans la manière dont nous élevons nos enfants, dont nous survivons, dont nous aimons et dont nous vieillissons. L'abolition de la famille est une provocation. Elle n'est pas destinée à susciter la colère, bien qu'il puisse arriver que soit le cas. Elle appelle chacun de nous à imaginer, débattre, réfléchir à quelles formes sociales pourraient favoriser des vies dignes d'être vécues." (pp. 257-258)

La citation résume l'ambition de l'ouvrage : abolir la famille, c'est avant tout abolir le capitalisme ; abolir la famille, c'est permettre à d'autres communautés d'amour et de soutien d'exister derrière le familialisme de nos sociétés. L'essai se divise en trois parties. Une première partie ("La famille impossible") pose le cadre conceptuel du livre en décrivant la famille et ses limites à dépasser. Une deuxième partie ("Une histoire de l'abolition de la famille"), plus longue, revient sur les différents mouvements de lutte contre le cadre familial (en allant du marxisme au féminisme radical, des luttes Noires aux mouvements queers, etc.). Enfin, la troisième partie ("Vers la commune") propose une solution d'abolition de la famille en se focalisant sur les mouvements de protestations collectifs, qui permettent ce que l'autrice appelle une "reproduction sociale communiste/insurgée", où tout le travail de reproduction serait collectivisé et permettrait à chacun de parvenir à une forme d'épanouissement, libéré des carcans de la famille et du capitalisme.

Le livre se lit très bien malgré les différents concepts et théories mobilisées. L'autrice se fonde beaucoup sur les pensées développées par d'autres personnes et cela lui permet d'aboutir à sa proposition de société communiste. Elle rend ces théories et pensées plutôt accessibles même pour les personnes qui n'en sont pas familières (comme moi). La deuxième partie est très intéressante dans son approche historique mais on peut reprocher une bibliographie peu fournie, j'aurai aimé davantage de notes et de renvois précis à d'autres travaux. La troisième partie m'a laissée songeur, je suis peut-être trop pessimiste pour être convaincu de la plausibilité de la Commune qu'elle imagine, j'ai l'impression qu'il ne sera pas possible de sortir du capitalisme. Mais j'admire son ambition et ses combats.

[Fun fact : Je crois que je m'attendais à lire Abolish the Family de Sophie Lewis, et j'ai réalisé en cours de lecture que je m'étais trompé de livre. Ils partagent le même titre et ont été publiés à la même période. Je n'ai pas été déçu de ma lecture pour autant, mais il faudrait comparer les deux approches !]

[Arya · Rating 1 out of 5]

very eclectic while turning marxism into a mechanical tool. a materialist without being a dialectician.

dismissive of socialist experiments and fetishistic of mass movements that have not built up any sort of lasting new power

the sections on the global 60s have immense glaring gaps. how can you talk about changing culture and society in that period without talking about china ?

the author paints socialist states and post-national liberation states in the same brushstroke, a very chauvinistic attitude !

she picks and chooses what theory from racialised theory pleases her and her marxism is fundamentally white. her theory of the communist revolution is childish fantasty.

the marxism she "expands" is nonsense, the rest is just repeating other people's theoretrical work without building on it. it becomes very repetitive very quickly.

very dissapointing read. i hope other recent books on this topic are better.

[Băcilă Marcu · Rating 5 out of 5]

Nobel Prize Laureate for "Most Based"

[Elianne · Rating 4 out of 5]

De eerste helft was echt geweldig, in de tweede helft schoot het soms wat uit de bocht.

[Emma · Rating 5 out of 5]

Review to come later, but for now - boy did this book have a huge, scary premise, and boy did it deliver!

[Alia W · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is an important conversation to have and I’m relieved that marginalized people are centered here.

It’s not intersectional though. Intersectionality includes class consciousness which in my opinion, this book lacks.

Even when done I could not get page 18 out of my mind. Claiming raising children, financially supporting one another, housecleaning, and cooking had to be done “to an extent not seen in decades” during the pandemic. Earlier declaring families depend on laundry services, on-call drivers, food preparation, and other luxury accommodations.

That may be how the 21% lives but the rest of us do not. You could make the argument that the 21% are the ones needing this level of education on the matter to even begin to care about communizing care - fine. What about the majority of others living in America? I doubt the author believes they only need the upper class to organize behind this cause so why not include the plight and consideration of the rest of us 79 percenters?

I think this book takes a decent stab at a very important topic but it misses the mark with the exclusion everyone under the upper class. Maybe it’s because I live in the rural midwest and have had to face some level of poverty my entire life but it left me feeling like the author needed to touch grass.

[Sara Refor · Rating 4 out of 5]

Malgrat la radicalitat que pot emanar el títol, O'Brien ens ve a recordar que necessitem cuidar-nos amb urgència. Mai un pronom feble, havia sigut tan fort: cuidar mutuament, entre nosaltres. 🦋

Recordem que quan abolim alguna cosa (llei, tradició), no simplement destruïm o suprimim, sinó que normalment ho fem per a millorar cap a una direcció millor, proposem alguna nova opció. O'Brien passa per Marx, Engels, Fourier, Kol.lontai i tants altres per reflexionar sobre com la familia nuclear actual no té cap sentit, de fet, és insostenible. Explica com aquest model de família ha fet que tants altres models siguen rebutjats ( lgtbi+, racialitzades, poliamor...), com ha fomentat la violència intrafamiliar per la seua opacitat i com junt amb el capitalisme, ens ha llevat el dret de decidir com voler cuidar i ser cuidades (treballem la major part del temps per a altres, etc). Al final del llibre, ens proposa com la família s'hauria d'obrir a molta més gent, com viuríem millor si ho férem en comú.

L'anàlisi és exhaustiu però accessible, no cal ser Karl Marx. Ha sigut una lectura interessant que et convida a reflexionar🌞📖

Em quede amb aquesta frase del llibre: "Hem d'abolir la famíliar nuclear, però hem de mantenir l'essencial: l'amor, la cura, la comunitat humana i la connexió, alliberant-les de les relacions d'abús, coerció, aïllament i propietat a què han estat sotmeses".❤️

[Madeleine · Rating 5 out of 5]

After reading "everything for everyone" for which O'Brien is one of the two coauthors, I found this book and hoped that it would give me some more analytic background for the world, the people, and the kinship structures she described in that work of fiction. And that's exactly what I got. I'm familiar with marxist analysis of history, but her approach of viewing society structures and capitalist hierarchical relationships through the lens of the family was really new and helpful to me.

[Elisenda Fusté Forès · Rating 2 out of 5]

Se m'ha fet terriblement tediós. Imagino que no és pas un mla llibre, però les meves expectatives eren unes altres. Esperava alguna cosa molt més pràctica i al final el 90% ha estat teoria. A més se m'ha fet molt repetitiu. Potser és un llibre per a gent que hi està més posada, però sens dubte no per gent que ens iniciem en aquest tipus de lectures.

[Ilya · Rating 5 out of 5]

I knew very little about family abolition when I started this book and now feel well aquatinted. The text covers a vast ground for being less than 300 pages and is incredibly approachable theory. Really appreciate what M.E. has done here

[Zack]

Really excellent critique of the family under capitalism. I would highly recommend this.

[Ailey | Bisexual Bookshelf · Rating 5 out of 5]

M.E. O’Brien’s Family Abolition: Capitalism and the Communizing of Care is a radical, incisive examination of the nuclear family as a site of capitalist social reproduction—and a call to imagine something better. O’Brien expertly threads together historical materialist analysis with visionary speculation, laying bare the ways family, capitalism, and state power intertwine to uphold systems of exploitation, coercion, and control. Her writing is both declarative and polemical, driven by a deep commitment to the liberation of all people.

One of the book’s most revelatory strengths lies in O’Brien’s definition of insurgent social reproduction: the transformation of household labor—those daily acts of care and survival—into the sustenance of militant protest. This reorientation challenges the reader to see “family” not as a static unit confined by blood and marriage, but as a dynamic practice: a group of people who “simply take part in this reproduction of social life.” Through this lens, the barricade becomes as much a site of family-making as the kitchen table. The Oaxaca Commune, which O’Brien references, is one such example that deeply resonated with me. It crystallized a truth I had long felt: that if we care enough about each other to help each other survive, we should be able to call ourselves family.

O’Brien expertly reveals how the nuclear family is not a natural or inevitable formation but a historically specific structure designed to socialize gender roles, impose heterosexual norms, and maintain male domination. The family, in its modern capitalist form, is the primary vehicle for reproducing able-bodied workers while isolating us from collective solidarity. It is a site of both care and coercion, a tension that O’Brien returns to again and again.

This analysis landed heavily for me, particularly as someone who often reflects on the ways we teach children to survive in a world that inflicts so much harm. We all have to be taught how to be people—how to exist in this world, how to advocate for and protect ourselves. We deserve safe, loving spaces to do that, spaces that encourage us to grow into our most authentic selves. But under capitalism, families are too often structured to produce obedience, heteronormativity, and compliance with exploitative systems.

The text also powerfully demonstrates how dedication to the nuclear family limits our capacity for collective solidarity. By making us wholly dependent on the private family unit for care, capitalism ensures that we remain vulnerable to abuse, isolation, and coercion. O’Brien asks us to consider: what would it mean to broaden our idea of family? To imagine care as communal, rather than privatized? What if children were raised not in isolation but with the support of many adults invested in their growth?

I was particularly moved by O’Brien’s insistence that whatever we build to replace the family must not replicate its harms. She urges us to abolish the border between child and adult, restoring autonomy to children as the independent humans they are. This call resonated deeply with me as someone who believes that disrupting cycles of harm begins with how we treat the most vulnerable among us.

O’Brien’s analysis also illuminated connections I had sensed but struggled to articulate—particularly the link between the nuclear family and private property. She demonstrates how capitalist states have historically restricted rights and resources to monogamous, heterosexual, married couples. These structures are not merely oppressive; they are intentional mechanisms to hoard wealth and social status.

Ultimately, what lingers most from Family Abolition is its hope. O’Brien dares us to envision a world where care is not transactional, where love is not confined by property or legality, where our capacities for tenderness and solidarity are truly free. Her insistence that “family abolition is a horizon of human freedom” felt like a breath of air after holding my breath for so long. It is an invitation—to rupture, to reimagine, and to build anew.

📖 Recommended For: Readers engaged with radical leftist thought, abolitionist feminism, and queer theory; those interested in the intersections of capitalism, family, and social reproduction; fans of Sophie Lewis and Dean Spade.

🔑 Key Themes: Family and Capitalism, Collective Care and Social Reproduction, Queer and Feminist Futures, Childhood Liberation and Autonomy, Abolitionist Politics.

[Ben · Rating 4 out of 5]

As someone who hasn't read the works of Sophie Lewis or other abolitionist writers, I found this to be a thorough primer/summation of family abolitionist thought. In particular, I appreciated:

1. Explorations into the relationship between the family and social reproduction theory.
2. The clarity with which "abolition" is defined. Authors exploring other forms of abolition could benefit from the level of conceptual refinement O'Brien shows here, since abolition can be easily misinterpreted.
3. The history of the family form under capitalism. Perhaps my favourite aspect of the book.
4. Mitakes of past Socialist movements' line of thought with respect to the family form. Another favourite, though my knowledge of the movements discussed is poor and so cannot say whether the commentary is fair/accurate.

With that said, I found some parts lacking:

1. The writing often lacked finesse, with lots of repetition throughout the book that served only to dilute to messaging.
2. The relationship between religion and family was less explored than I would've liked. At face-value it seems like quite a significant omission.
3. Perhaps most significantly: I disliked what I felt to be a fetishistic attitude towards mass movements' protest camps, in which lawlessness and/or gift-based economics form the basis of their communist social reproduction. It supports an exclusionary vision of revolutionary participation particularly susceptible to State retribution, leaving those in more precarious relationships with the State being less/unable to contribute. It's also not clear why protest camps relying on gift economics, where gifts are surely (?) sourced from wage labor/inherited wealth, i.e. capitalist participation, should be seen as preferential to other commune forms/prefigurative strategies. Both seem to me to rely on capitalist participation, just with different degrees of separation. Nonetheless, I found the analysis to be insightful and would be interested to explore how O'Brien's definition of communist social reproduction might be integrated into day-to-day prefigurative strategies of care and solidarity.
4. I found O'Brien's imaginations of the communes of the future (chapter 13) to be unsubstantive/shallow. While I fundamentally agree with the practice of speculating communist futures, I believe it should either be clearly science fictional or grounded in real processes. The imaginations outlined here were neither, relying on vague terms of uprising and "takeover of essential industries". On this I find https://endnotes.org.uk/posts/forest-... to be relevant and a more engaging form of utopic visioning.

Overall, though, the negatives are mostly idealogical disagreements and I still thoroughly recommend the book.

[frolick inthe machine · Rating 4 out of 5]

v admirable book that attempts a materialist account of the historical rise of the family as a bourgeois private household, proletarian and non-white rebellions and critiques of the form, and speculative / pre-figured forms of the horizon of communist social reproduction (where care is faciliated outside of the state/family/wage). i particularly appreciated how O'Brien thought through and wove together radical Black (feminist) tradition and Marxism together to argue for family abolition. also liked how clear-sighted they were about the contradictions - racism, queerphobia, sexism, etc - that abound in our attempts to create "insurgent social reproduction," and nonetheless the need for us to work towards it. if anything it felt like a call to recommit to the social.

I wish there were more history here - more historical storytelling and analysis. more granular, descriptive sentences over utopian declarations - for me this lessened their authority. but I also think that they are trying to write a different book than I want. this also made me think about what a critique of the family would look like if it centered Asia - partly bc this is what i'm already thinking about - but also because it is fairly Americas-centric.

few fav quotes:

"Struggling together is a form of making new kin. This making kin through collective struggle is a naming of the positive quality of solidarity and love that many people search for in families."

"Care is a material relationship, a set of forms of labor. It is a form of labor, performed as a relation between people, that offers a use value necessary for living tolerable lives. For many, it takes the particular forms of personal dependency within the family. Care in the family may be a mother changing an infant’s diaper; a romantic couple having decent sex; a person cooking and serving food to everyone in a private household; conversations about emotional challenges; or helping a disabled aging parent get in and out of bed."

"Care is an affective relationship. In caring for others, and in being cared for, we can experience the possibility of love."

[Levi · Rating 3 out of 5]

out of this entire book i think I learned like 2 interesting things: the fact about black sharcroppers being forced into marriages in order to get parcels of land to work on and that native american women were forced to take the last names of their husbands. There was also a part about how black people have always practiced a type of family abolition by going against the traditional nuclear family model that they understand as a pure fantasy and that made me realize that I have expierenced family abolition my whole life bcs i was raised by a single mother and many other parental figures that were not directly related to me by blood. but anyway the end of the book was just..let me just say...anarchist BS. For one the author just doesn't understand what the state is. i cant directly quote the book bcs i listened to an audiobook but pretty much what he was said was "Marx understood the state as a form of power under capitalism which utilizes churches, the police, etc." (dont quote me on this idk exactly what he said) EITHER WAY thats not how marx defined the state. marx defined the state as the irreconcilable antagonism between 2 classes. the whole end of the book talks about how setting up communes and spontanious uprisings will lead to communism which is just...ridiculous and ahistorical. that has just never happened and isn't going to happen. I honestly think this idea that communism can happen without utilizing the state is because anarchists just do not understand what the state is and that the state isn't something that just exists under capitalism it existed under every mode of production. but anyway I dont think this book was a complete waste of time

[womp womp oemp oemp]

took me a minute just because of it’s density (it’s not necessarily heady, it’s rather accessible and organized for what it is)


made me think about the Marxist divide of the workers movement and the necessity of transitionary social organizations toward a “horizon”, as the books call it, where we do not require labor, (and family)— “true communism”. O’Brien comes with the inclination of throwing out the baby with the bathwater, so to speak, that to abolish the family is to abolish capitalism and the state. That a lot of this pure form is possible only in the wholesale, insurrectionist/revolutionary efforts, in total dissolution. I understand how some may call it naive but I don’t think that’s a bad thing and is necessary in the discourse as well

I wish the tension between global movement (the spur of millions) and stateless-local communization efforts was more explored. Though O’Brien does not make an exact recipe for the cook-shops of the future, as she says herself is not particularly helpful— but then you just wait to see what happens in terms of revolution and adapt from their ?

their spec-fic New York Commune book is perhaps where some sort of “recipe” is given, but to also a constructed material future condition), where this feels like the theory and the other like the “practice” (or show of it) — > the NY commune book gives more in-depth, “lived” examples of communization and fills in gaps of this book

[Arthur · Rating 5 out of 5]

family abolition feels like a huge puzzle piece i was missing in my understanding of both the present day and what a revolutionary future could look like - really enjoyed this and appreciated the slightly in the weeds material history of the family

this book does def just feel like a bit of a starting point and is veryyy limited by a western viewpoint and history

i get that the point of this is that there is no applying this to an individual/present way of living because the only way to overcome all of the deficiencies of the family is through total revolution but if anyone has any ideas/texts about this i would love to hear them

[Luke Nolan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Struggled to get into this at first as I didn't click with the writing style straight away. Nevertheless, I found this to be a thorough account of the political and social formation and implications of the nuclear family. The last section of the book was particularly inspiring, illustrating what post-revolutionary 'family' formations could look like and the paths to their realisation.