Marriage and Revolution

[Dóchas]

I am gradually making my way through the rather irritating book "Lenin" by Robert Service when I came across this interesting view of Lenin's relationship with Nadezhda Konstantinova and I was wondering what your opinions of it are?


They consciously rejected contemporary bourgeois attitudes to matters of the heart and instead aimed to construct a new way of life - and they supposed that their own relationship should be focused on working collaboratively for the cause of the Revolution. For them, the idea of a permanent marital union had distasteful connotations: tradition, religion, economic self-interest and the subjection of the wife to the husband

It seems to me to be a very cold point of view of love and marriage but it does seem to make sense in a weird sort of way. Is marriage/love and revolution incompatible or is this just a blatant anti-communist biographer trying to dehumanize the left with generalizations like this?

[Savage]

Marriage in the general sense is a very conservative concept for the reasons paraphrased in the above quote, for this reason alot of leftists reject the concept. You say that this is a cold point about love and marriage but the fact is that marriage restricts love more than anything else. In the end it's your own choice though, do whatever you want.

[Magón]

When I get "married" it's going to be me handing over a tinfoil made ring, and hopefully getting some. That's my marriage plans. :wub:

[Widerstand]

Marriage is not love. Marriage is a religious institution that serves to formalize, restrict and ultimately control love.

[hatzel]

Despite bucking the trend with the ol' religious hoo-haa over here, making me keen on marriage, even I would concede that the state should best keep its dirty nose out of what is in practice supposed to be a deeply spiritual affair (for the religious, anyway). Marriage needn't be tainted by having some council official bearing a contract coming over and rubber-stamping everything, so they can then take it away and put it in their filing cabinet somewhere, in case they ever want to do you for bigamy or deal with child custody or whatever else they might use these records for. The nature of marriage, and the ceremony itself, would change dramatically in a socialist society, when religious couples would stop having the state overseeing their binding and unification into one soul in front of G-d. Not in front of the state, the taxman or anybody else. That would be a great day for the very institution of marriage, I can assure you...

[Hoplite]

I am gradually making my way through the rather irritating book "Lenin" by Robert Service when I came across this interesting view of Lenin's relationship with Nadezhda Konstantinova and I was wondering what your opinions of it are?



It seems to me to be a very cold point of view of love and marriage but it does seem to make sense in a weird sort of way. Is marriage/love and revolution incompatible or is this just a blatant anti-communist biographer trying to dehumanize the left with generalizations like this?
There was someone a while back (I cant remember for the life of me who talked about this) that the traditional view of marriage was a commercial relationship. It was borne out of economic necessity and its forged in that respect. Traditionally, the husband works and provides for the family while the wife works internally and keeps the family together when the husband isnt around. The child depends on the father for economic resources that provide for his care.

For our part, I think we need to look at a more expanded view of the idea of marriage. I dont think we should tear down the traditional view of marriage, but instead we support alternative marriage arrangements and the people themselves will decide what is best for their needs and act accordingly.

[William Howe]

Marriage is simply government-recognized union. While I don't find it necessary, many couples do it to show their love for one another, that they're willing to go to a great length to show that they will forever be with their spouse.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Marriage in capitalism is based purely on economics.

[Widerstand]

Marriage is simply government-recognized union. While I don't find it necessary, many couples do it to show their love for one another, that they're willing to go to a great length to show that they will forever be with their spouse.

That's certainly not what marriage is.

We have to differ here between the function and effects of legalistic/formalized marriage and the romantic ideal of marriage (although the two intersect).

This intersection is what creates most of the negative social effects, but legalistic/formalistic marriage can also create income inequality. In any way, if we look at any given legal regulation of marriage, whether by abstract, religious "law" or by enforced state law, we will very often encounter that both is marriage heavily regulated by various rules, and simultaneously that marriage is considered the manifestation of true, pure, everlasting, [...] (you name it) love. Often these rules are heteronormative, but they always are monogamous. What can then be said about legalistic/formalized marriage is that it creates very clear definitions and hierarchies of which forms of love can be "true love" or "serious love" or "pure love" or "everlasting love", etc. This is an inherently exclusionary and oppressive praxis, and indeed marriage cannot be anything else unless either the social ideas about marriage change (so yes, patriarchy is partially to blame), the legal concept of marriage is broadened ad absurdum, or the legal integration of marriage is effectively destroyed. Let's not get started about the social inequalities created by economic benefits only available to married couples, and the especially when confronted with the exclusionary character of marriage regulations briefly mentioned before.

Or in less complicated words: "Marriage is the state's way to say "this is good love" and "this is bad love"."

[Black Sheep]

I have to admit that Lenin surprised me, positively.
Way to go chap!

[hatzel]

Or in less complicated words: "Marriage is the state's way to say "this is good love" and "this is bad love"."

Or, the state has come to use marriage as a way to say "this is good love" and "this is bad love". Two people could easily 'get married' without involving the state, without involving any registry office or state-recognised marriage contract. Just by going out into a field with their partner, having a service that can take whatever form they want, fitting their religious or spiritual beliefs (or lack thereof), potentially having a huge party afterwards to celebrate, and then they're married, for all intents and purposes, and according to their own beliefs. The state won't recognise them as married, and they won't be conferred with any benefits for it, anything not afforded to cohabitants, but that's not actually the important thing (or it's sure not supposed to be! :rolleyes:), if we believe that people can get married in order to unite their souls in the eyes of the Divine, or to express their love and commitment to one another - both of these are covenants / contracts / agreements between the participants in the marriage, and potentially also between them as a couple and G-d. Of course the state shouldn't have the authority to declare a monopoly over which forms this could take, as the state cannot override either the will of the participants, or what is and isn't accepted by G-d, which remains totally disconnected from any human concepts of sovereignty. With this is mind, the state also has no right to dictate which services do and do not constitute weddings, if they remain personal and / or spiritual affairs - we might nowadays call these things 'commitment ceremonies', and talk about 'loyalty bands' rather than 'wedding bands', but I'd argue whether it's appropriate to claim that only state-recognised marriages deserve the name...

Oh, and there's nothing to stop us, if we believe in polygamy or any other 'non-standard' forms of marriage, there's nothing to stop us having these 'commitment ceremonies' which we might ourselves call 'marriages' with as many people as we so please. Each to their own, if you ask me! Hence, the true institution of marriage, which can be as strict or as lax as the participants agree to and are happy with, is a world away from what we mean when we talk about marriage, as a state-sanctioned union of people.

I, incidentally, hope to have one of these 'unofficial' marriages, in case anybody was interested :)

[Manic Impressive]

I am gradually making my way through the rather irritating book "Lenin" by Robert Service when I came across this interesting view of Lenin's relationship with Nadezhda Konstantinova and I was wondering what your opinions of it are?
Terrible terrible book but I've been told that Robert Service is a leftist but whatever, shit book (cool front cover :))