There were a few times that Marx and Engels extended class warfare to other aspects like race and nationality.
The first citation is from
here and it needs huge contextualization. It is an opinion piece of St. Karl addressing the matter of emigration from Ireland and Britain. In it, he makes the case that, unlike in antiquity where low productive power required a large population to offset it, in capitalist societies high productive power ended up requiring lesser populations as the mechanization of agriculture and the handicrafts made large traditional sections of the population redundant, requiring them to adapt into wage slavery.
Thus, "The classes and the races, too weak to master the new conditions of life" that "must give way" were, contextualized to the article, the "Scotch clansman. the Irish cottier and tenant, the English yeoman, the hand-loom weaver" etc etc, all of whom decayed due to emigration into industrial centers to enlarge the ranks of the industrial proletariat or just plain bankruptcy when faced with industrial competition.
In due time, he said, mechanization would have wiped out more classes like landlords and cotton lords.
This is what it means: the capacity of capitalism to uproot people from their land and their traditional occupations, to turn them into new proletarians.
The second citation (a partial one) is by Engels and once again it refers to a specific situation. The piece was written in 1848 and it referred in particular to the Spring of Nations in Europe, when the bourgeoisies of many countries revolted against the autocracies in Europe.
In the Austrian Empire the Germans, the Poles and the Hungarians demanded a constitution (not love of liberty, just because their own peculiar interpretations of freedom of speech, press, assembly etc allowed them the breathing room to overthrow the aristocracies or anyway make them insignificant, as it happened under every constitutional monarchy under the sun), you can look that shit up, while more backwards peoples like Croats, Serbs, Transylvanian Saxons, Szekelis etc allied themselves with the Habsburgs, provided they kept their autonomy.
And they both cheered on the USA when they conquered Mexican lands, and Great Britain for subjugating India.
If you want a piece on India, you can read
this. It's far from a cheer, in fact Karl here states that
the misery inflicted by the British on Hindostan is of an essentially different and infinitely more intensive kind than all Hindostan had to suffer before. I do not allude to European despotism, planted upon Asiatic despotism, by the British East India Company, forming a more monstrous combination than any of the divine monsters startling us in the Temple of Salsette
[7].
All the civil wars, invasions, revolutions, conquests, famines, strangely complex, rapid, and destructive as the successive action in Hindostan may appear, did not go deeper than its surface. England has broken down the entire framework of Indian society, without any symptoms of reconstitution yet appearing. This loss of his old world, with no gain of a new one, imparts a particular kind of melancholy to the present misery of the Hindoo, and separates Hindostan, ruled by Britain, from all its ancient traditions, and from the whole of its past history.
Ok, so where's the cheer? In which way did he see British colonialism as positive?
Because, by uprooting traditional life, just as it happened in Europe, by the way, as I've just shown you with the piece on emigration, British capitalism was, in spite of being fueled by the
was still a force for progress, just as it was in Europe.
Mughal India had the highest geedeepee before British colonization, but who in his right mind could argue that modern Indian industry and all of its giants, think Tata Steel, owes its existence to Britain?
And it was Indian industry itself, the conditions that created it, that paved the way for India's independence. Not because Britain conceded it out of kindness, it fought a war of independence and decades of political struggle imprisoning people left and right and beating up protesters with sticks, but because it created that class of people that, through independence, would have received its own breathing room to further develop, to exploit and monopolize India's market once Britain was gone.
They wanted to abolish the family, so queer activists would be seen as useful to that. But Marx hated gays, and so has every other communist regime known to man, so they're just useful idiots.
"The family" doesn't exist, it's an umbrella term for different kinds of social organizations. The family you're used to, the nuclear family, is two centuries old at best and it is itself the product of capitalist relations, the ones founded on the uprooting of every traditional norm and custom.
The idea that a household is made only of mother, father and children is itself as anti-traditional as it gets when throughout our history we had gentes, extended families, clans and so on.
To live with your mother and even your grandparents and bring your wife and children under the same roof was the norm until two centuries ago (and until even less in Italy where I live), that's a different kind of familiar organization, it isn't a nuclear family. When someone makes fun of 30 year olds for living with their parents, he's being anti-traditional because it's been the norm for most of human history.
The communists don't need nor even want to abolish "the family", by which we mean here the nuclear family, it's abolishing itself as we speak as wives and husbands are sent to work and after their nine to fives don't have the slightest time and/or will to think of each other or the children. Capitalism itself is as anti-family as it gets, it absorbs people so much in their jobs and careers that it allows no time for personal or familiar cultivation.
So, what remains of the family in these circumstances? It's stripped down just to making children, the future hands and minds who will operate machines, stand behind computers doing only God knows what kind of bs job, sell shit and so on. Children are only valued as future workers, and even then we have reached a stage so horrible that, consumed by their work, couples can't even be fucked with making children, so congratulations capitalism you haven't just destroyed traditional life but you doomed the Species, capital s, to extinction.
I won't even address homo couples or whatever because, in reality, they simply don't count.
Communist society will not have a nuclear family (I reiterate: not something eternal, the family institution has constantly changed throughout history) because the communists intend to abolish it, but because by then capitalism itself will have destroyed it.
What kind of family a communist one will be I have no idea, but take in consideration the fact that communism emerges from the ruins of this world, and this is a godless world where marriage doesn't last and children spend less and less significant time with their parents.
