Engels (1884) refers to the function of inheritance of property as being created by the bourgeoisie to keep private property and wealth within the ruling classes by adopting a system of patrilineality. He believed that the system of monogamous nuclear families developed at the same time as private property and before this there was no form of family that we would be able to understand. Before the nuclear family was created sexual relationships were promiscuous and society was classless and matriarchal. The moment the idea of private property appeared the development of the family and marriage occurred in order for men to know what was theirs (“Marriage is ... incontestably a form of private property.” - Karl Marx.) and created a power imbalance which left women and children considered as little more than men's property. As the inheritance of property keeps the proletariat from increasing it's wealth from generation to generation and keeps wealth within the family's of the bourgeoisie, we can state this function keeps the perviously stated classes within their own ascribed status and acts to keep the proletariat under the bourgeoisie's control by minimising the ways in which they can earn status and stopping society from becoming a true meritocracy.
Furthermore, Marxists claim that the family is used as a tool of capitalism too instil capitalist ideals into the next generation. Because of this society is instilled with a set of beliefs that justify inequality and maintain the capitalist system by persuading people to accept it as fair and natural or unchangeable (“The child is, in fact, primarily taught not how to survive in society, but how to submit to it” - Cooper). The family socialises the ideas of hierarchy and inequality. According to Eli Zaretsky (1976) the family offers a “safe haven from capitalism for workers to relax but this is only contrived and cannot meet its members needs.” This function ensures that the ruling class is able to keep control over the working classes and works (as Marxists claim) to prevent a communist revolution. This function therefore maintains the current social infrastructure by ensuring there is no major upheavals in the system.
Similarly, Marxists talk about the family as a unit of consumption, whose main function is to allow capitalism to exploit the labour of workers and to act as an important institution in the generation of profits and the market for the sale of consumer goods. This is achieved in three ways, by advertisers encouraging families to 'keep up with the Jones's' by consuming all the latest products, by the media targeting children with 'pester power' and that are able to persuade their parents to spend more and by causing children who lack the latest clothing and “must have” gadgets are mocked and/or stigmatised by their peers. Marxists do not see this as benefiting the family at all, only capitalism and therefore this helps support their conclusion that the family is only a negative institution. This function serves only to support society's economy (which Marxists see as the heart of society) and therefore acts to maintain the social infrastructure by ensuring the proletariat are paid for their work and the means of production remains stable.
The final function (Safety Value) is defined by Benston (1972) who states it serves to allow the man a way of taking out his frustration after a bad day at work due to the exploitation and alienation they suffer by directing all of his anger towards his wife (domestic violence and emotional abuse) instead of blowing up at work to his boss and causing disruptions at the work place. Fran Ansley (1972) a Marxist feminist describes wives from this point of view as being 'takers of shit' who absorb their husbands anger(“When wives play their traditional role as takers of shit, they often absorb their husbands legitimate anger and frustration in a way which poses no threat to the system” - Ansley) This function is definitely not benefiting to the family dynamic and once again supports the view that the family is a negative institution which perpetuates oppressive ideologies.
However, many other sociologists have criticised the Marxist approach such as sociologist's focusing in the areas of postmodernism, functionalism and feminism. Postmodernist's (such as Ulrich Beck[1992]) criticise Marxists for ignoring family diversity in modern society and for assuming that the nuclear family structure is still dominant. They claim that the Marxist way of talking in terms of traditional gender roles can not be justified when there is so much diversity, greater choice and inequality in modern society. Where as functionalist criticism focuses on the Marxist view of the family as a negative institution and argues that Marxists ignore the very real benefits the family provides for its members such as intimacy and mutual support. Furthermore, feminists argue that the Marxist approach puts too much emphasis on social class and capitalism, stating that they underestimate the importance of gender inequalities within the family. In the feminist view, the family serves the interests of men, not capitalism.
In conclusion, although Marxism provides a thorough critical approach of the family and takes into approach some of its more phenomenological aspects such as its darker sides, it doesn't give a wide enough view of the family for it to be truly relevant in modern society. The Marxist approach only applies to the nuclear family and ignores the fact that there are many other issues in society other than class such as gender inequalities. The Marxist view of the family must either explore and adapt to fit new trends in family structure or face becoming obsolete in this subject area.