Communist Manifesto questions...

[GiantBear91]

Im in the middle of the book and I have gotten to the subject of wemon.

I don't understand these lines. Could anyone help?

Line 1:

"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 legalized community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e, of prostitution both public and private."



Then Im having trouble understanding the next two lines.


"The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality.
The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself as the nation, it is, so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word."


Please help.
Thank you comrades,
Bear

[fatboy]

First I think means a substitution for the current system of marriage.

In the second line he means abolishing all countries and nationalities. Hope I could be a help.

[Yehuda Stern]

Line 1: this is basically an answer to bourgeois conservatives who allege that communists want to replace the supposed sanctity of marriage with a system where men will be able to have sexual relations with any number of partners.

What Marx and Engels are saying here that this is nothing but hypocrisy. Bourgeois married life is supposed to be loving and warm but more often than not is sheer hell for both partners, especially the woman. This leads not only to bitterness and resentment but also to rampant infidelity.

The most that can be said about communists, then, is that they aim to make this switching of partners open and honest and not hidden. Of course, none of us would describe the role of women in communist society as serving multiple male partners - it is the chauvinist narrow mindedness of the conservatives which makes them put the question in such terms. It is only meant to expose their hypocrisy.

Line 2: again this is an answer to allegations from bourgeois anti-communists, this time that communism is against the values of a certain nation, that it is anti-national, etc. Marx and Engels reply that it is not that communism is foreign to the values of a different nation, but that the interests of the working class, which communism represents, are alien to those of the national bourgeoisie.

[Pogue]

Do you agree with it though Yehuda? It seems a basic human desire to have one close partner who you give loyalty too and receive it from in turn.

[NecroCommie]

Do you agree with it though Yehuda? It seems a basic human desire to have one close partner who you give loyalty too and receive it from in turn.
A matter of personal preference. Both stances must be accepted within socialist and communist society.

[Pogue]

A matter of personal preference. Both stances must be accepted within socialist and communist society.

Yeh I accept other stances. But I think multiple partners can have a negative impact on people mentally/emotionally. I don't think 3 really works in a relationship.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Yeh I accept other stances. But I think multiple partners can have a negative impact on people mentally/emotionally. I don't think 3 really works in a relationship.

Don't call it a relationship then. There are plenty of people who have an open love life with many people. Some people prefer to be free and open while others prefer to have a very loyal and close relationship with just one other person.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Don't call it a relationship then. There are plenty of people who have an open love life with many people. Some people prefer to be free and open while others prefer to have a very loyal and close relationship with just one other person.

And they're ok with that? Most people I know would never allow their partner to be in relationships with other people, but mind you I live in a Conservative town which generally would hold Conservative views on these things anyway. I like the Communist views on this thing since I wouldn't be able to deal with committing myself to just one person my whole life. People's views, ideas, and interests change therefore I would want to find another person who is more suited to what attracts me if this was to change. Besides, marriage is really nothing more than a symbolic ceremony to express love for your partner. I don't feel a need to have some special ceremony to remind people that I'm in love with somebody.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Do you agree with it though Yehuda? It seems a basic human desire to have one close partner who you give loyalty too and receive it from in turn.
Then why do so many people cheat on their partners? I'd say the most important thing in a relationship is affection, btw, not "loyalty".
Also, this thread is in danger of turning into this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/monogamy-t111412/index.html). :blink:

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

I'd say the most important thing in a relationship is affection, btw, not "loyalty".

See, that's the thing. It's personal. Loyalty in a relationship may not be important to you, but it will certainly be to others and that's why I think it's important to take into account all ideas about what constitutes a relationship. Some people want traditional relationships involving long-term commitment and only two people, some people want open relationships etc etc.

[mel]

Also, this thread is in danger of turning into this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/monogamy-t111412/index.html). :blink:

:crying:

[mel]

I don't feel a need to have some special ceremony to remind people that I'm in love with somebody.

It's not about "reminding people that you're in love with somebody", but it's supposed to make you publicly accountable to commit yourself to your spouse. A private marriage that nobody has told anybody about does not make you accountable to maintain that bond with your friends and family and community. A public marriage does that, or is supposed to. Nobody really takes it seriously anymore, so it's pretty much just an expensive party these days, but there's merit in the implementation, and in a communist society where the sense of community hasn't been so far degraded, it's likely to be taken more seriously if and when that bond is entered into.

[GiantBear91]

:crying:

Oh, no comrade. I just did not understand the sentence because of the way Marx worded it haha! Thats one of the hardest things for me to understand about the Communist Manifesto. It's because of the way Marx worded everything ha! I understand the basic concept of the Manifesto its just that I have trouble understanding the way he wrote it.
It has nothing to do with Monogamy lol!