why didn't you post the entire statement?

   We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement 
   by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that 
   collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree 
   that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.

I don't see anything nefarious or particularly "Marxist" about this. A conservative or Christian would surely agree that greater community and cultural bonds and involvement in the welfare of youth is morally just and in alignment with traditional American values.

I agree with your last statement 100%. Why in the world would it be necessary to disrupt the nuclear family to have greater community and cultural bonds?

Some of the founders of BLM are self-proclaimed Marxists. I don't think it is much of a stretch to say there is some sort of a connection between Marxism and being anti-family.

You are misplacing the disruption on the nuclear family, when it is actually saying to disrupt the requirement on nuclear families.

This refers to ways our society benefits 2-parent households and makes things harder for single parents. They suggest addressing this by providing more support and community for each other, not by tearing down nuclear families.

As an analogy, installing wheelchair ramps doesn't prevent people from climbing stairs, it just makes building more accessible.

It isn't society making it easier for two parents to raise a child vs one parent. It's having double the number of people raising that child.

I see no way to read that as BLM supports the nuclear family. So the largest social justice movement in the US doesn't support two parent families. That seems pretty significant

krapp, BLM explicitly states that they want to disrupt the nuclear family.

Again, why in the world would it be necessary to disrupt the nuclear family to gain greater connection to extended family and the community??

It doesn't seem that disruptive to me, but trying to portray it as a Marxist anti-family statement is still a stretch. It appears to advocate "disruption" of the nuclear family model through greater community involvement rather than "disruption" through dismantling it. It's still not an anti nuclear-family statement per se, it's just against having the nuclear family unit being the only relevant influence in societal upbringing.

Which in a rural white community would literally be a Sunday church sermon.

Because only the first part of the sentence looks bad.

It is bad. How in the world would having both your parents living at home somehow limit connection and relationship with other familiy members and the community?

Why don't you restate the quote in your own words if you think I am misunderstanding.