What does Marxism have to say about sex (and alcohol)?

[UltraWright]

Was extramarital sex prohibited in the USSR? If so, why? Do the Marxist principles advocate that?

[Tommy4ever]

Marxism doesn't tell people how to live their lives.

However most Marxists have usually been very open and very progressive in this regard.

The pre-Stalin Soviet Union experienced a sort of wave of sexual liberation. That all came to an end with the 'Great Retreat' abandoned the libertarian attitude to sex and introduced a more conservative and tradionalist attitude which would continue throughout the rest of the USSR's history.

As I said at the start of the post - Marxism doesn't tell you how you should live your life, it only calls for a certain economic system.

[caramelpence]

As I said at the start of the post - Marxism doesn't tell you how you should live your life, it only calls for a certain economic system.

Whilst I agree with you that Marx and Marxism aren't intended to provide a comprehensive moral doctrine or set of ethical rules in the way that a religious does, I wouldn't go so far as to say that Marxism is just an economic alternative, not only because Marx himself didn't provide a clear description of what communist society would actually be like in terms of institutions and the organization of production, but also because Marx was sensitive to moral issues as well - he did have an account of human nature, and corresponding to that, he also had a vision of human flourishing, i.e. a conception of what human beings should do with their lives. So in a minimal or broad sense, Marx did tell people what to do with their lives, although I doubt he would have expressed it in those terms. On the specific issue of sex, the thrust of Marx's ideas is that communist society would enhance monogamous relationships rather than eliminate them, as the family, for example, would no longer be debased by the "cash nexus". The socialist of the 19th century who was geared more towards sexual liberation and considerations of sex was Fourier, but Marx's characterization him was generally negative, especially when it came to Fourier's vision of work being transformed into play.

As has been pointed out, historic "socialist" societies were overwhelmingly conservative in their attitudes to sex.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Marxism doesn't say anything about alcohol or other drugs. Marx himself was known to enjoy a pint or two and sometimes went on benders. The Russian revolutionary Leon Trotsky was more "straightedge", he didn't drink and thought good manners and avoiding curse words were important in raising the cultural level of the working class. Marxism doesn't say anything about sex either. However the Marxist analysis believes aspects of a society are always linked together, you can't view any one element in isolation. At times in society sexual repression could be seen as a means of social control. At other times sexual "permissiveness" could be used to distract and control people.

At one period early in the Russian Revolution prohibition was enacted to fight the massive drinking which seemed to be spiraling out of control in some areas. I don't how long this lasted. Gorbachev attempted to place restrictions on the availability of vodka, one of the things making him intensely unpopular in the fSU.

The psychologist Wilhelm Reich came closest to a Marxist view of sexuality. The film "Mystery of the Organism" is based on his thought and is interesting, and also very trippy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Reich

http://www.criterion.com/films/824-wr-mysteries-of-the-organism

Since Stalin, the Soviet Union was, officially at least, puritanical and upheld "family values". I don't know if pre-maritial sex was illegal. Having said that Russian culture has always unofficially been fairly sexually uninhibited.

[SacRedMan]

A friend of mine that went to Cuba told me that the passion of the Cuban local people is sex. And that's logic, because in a marxist society there are no famillies, so no marriage, so no sex with only one person.

[UltraWright]

A friend of mine that went to Cuba told me that the passion of the Cuban local people is sex. And that's logic, because in a marxist society there are no famillies, so no marriage, so no sex with only one person.

What? No families in a Marxist society?

:ohmy::ohmy::eek::eek::eek::eek::ohmy::ohmy:

[hatzel]

Marx himself was known to enjoy a pint or two and sometimes went on benders.

This is easily the single best line in this thread.


What? No families in a Marxist society?

It's a point of contention. I'm not a Marxist, so I can't really go into it, but it's something to do with the idea that the family is just a means of protecting private property, and without private property, there will be no family. Or something. We've had a few comically over the top people on here (who were subsequently mocked and banned...what was his name again? The guy from...somewhere in East Asia, I think, remind me!) who seemed to want to totally ban even girlfriend-boyfriend relationships for stealing the 'common property' that is...women? Was it that sexist? :confused: But then the same guy was talking about executing homosexuals, so such fucked up politics hardly surprise me. Anyway, back on topic, many Marxists do seem to want to abolish the family, or expect it to 'wither away' like all that other stuff that will 'wither away'. Personally, I'm not sure if I buy into it quite like that, I think that's a bit too stringent. But that's just me :)

[Tommy4ever]

What? No families in a Marxist society?


:ohmy::ohmy::eek::eek::eek::eek::ohmy::ohmy:


Don't worry. No one but idiots stand for such ideas.

[Queercommie Girl]

Marxism is a science of economics and history, as well as a strategic political programme for the working class to acquire power.

Marxism is not a religion or a "philosophical theory of the entire universe", consequently it does not make any conclusive statements about sexual morality, alcohol and drugs.

One should not turn to Marxism for answers to moral questions in the same way a religious person might turn to the Bible or the Qu'ran for such answers.

Personally I'm willing to work with both "moral liberals" and "moral conservatives", as long as they are genuinely socialist and do not discriminate against anyone on the basis of race, gender and sexuality. I'm not going to call anyone "anti-socialist" just because they oppose the use of drugs, for example. I don't really care one way or another.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Comrade, Socialism - and I hope my fellow comrades strongly agree with this - does not seek to, in any way, deny or restrict peoples' basic human instincts nor their personal choices or urges.

Here is a piece by Emma Goldman on sex, love and marriage which underscores the point that no institution, party or movement should try to regulate, marginalise or alter the natural notion of love, including the sexual element:

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/goldman/works/1914/marriage-love.htm

[Lorax]

As a student, Marx was a member of the Trier Tavern Club drinking society in Bonn and even served as its president. Marx was also a family man. This is the first I've heard of the family "withering away" and highly doubt that Marx ever predicted it. Anyway Marx himself famously declared that he was not a Marxist. It's best not to get too caught up in setting out rules about what's Marxist and what isn't regarding every aspect of life. There's room for various ways of life and policy choices within Marxist theory.

[caramelpence]

Marxism is not a religion or a "philosophical theory of the entire universe", consequently it does not make any conclusive statements about sexual morality, alcohol and drugs.

Again, I don't think Marxism is some kind of totally comprehensive theory either, but it's too much to say that it is only a science of economics (and/or politics, etc.) and that it has no perspective on individual morality. This may be compatible with the economist Marxism of the Second International but it's hardly something that can be reconciled with Marx himself (or at last the Marx of the 1844 Manuscripts, On the Jewish Question, Peuchet: vom Selbstmord, and much of The German Ideology - texts that the earliest Marxists did not really have access to, of course) because Marx was very much concerned with questions of morality, aesthetics, and interpersonal relations, though without being a moral philosopher as such - it is quite clear that his vision of socialism is not merely a society in which the most pressing forms of economic deprivation have been abolished and that his critique of capitalism does not solely rest on the most immediate and visible forms of material poverty, rather, his work does also embody a conception of human flourishing and the good life, derived from a range of philosophical sources from Aristotle to Schiller, and his vision of socialism is very much an expression of that conception. This conception integrates concerns such as community, man's nature as an objective being, intellectual stimulation and development, aesthetic pleasure - not all of these concerns are strictly Marxian or even socialist but the point is that they are an important part of Marx's work and that they do also suggest views on moral questions such as sexual relationships. I would argue, for example, that, like Mill, Marx does accept a distinction between higher and lower pleasures and that he does believe that there are certain kinds of life that human beings should aspire to - and others that they should reject, such as lives based around the consumption of hard drugs. This perfectionist viewpoint, which is a common characterization of Marx's ethics, is one reason why some scholars have suggested that communism can be understood as a democratization and universalization of Aristotle's eudaimonia.

So, whilst Marxism is not a total philosophy, it does encompass more than politics and economics, or, put differently, it has a totalizing impulse that recognizes the close links between different spheres of study, including the links between morality, philosophy, and politics. To ignore this and to reduce Marxism to a set of economic analyses is, again, to ignore some of Marx's richest ideas.

[Queercommie Girl]

Marx did make comments on morality, aesthetics etc, of course, especially the early Marx.

But Marxism is not a religion, in the sense that socialists today have no reason to accept Marx's words on value theory etc as some kind of "gospel".

If a socialist actually disagrees with Marx's own personal views on art, for example, it does not in any way make him/her a "heretic". Marx is not a prophet who is "always right" on everything. Marx is largely right scientifically and politically speaking on economics, history and politics, but not necessarily on everything else. A communist society is not a "Marxist theocracy".

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

The psychologist Wilhelm Reich came closest to a Marxist view of sexuality.

There is a passage about sexual relations in The Communist Manifesto, specifically about women as property. There is Engels' "The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State," which is frequently assigned in courses on gender; there is August Bebel's Women in Socialism, not to mention Clara Zetkin, who was very close to Lenin. Finally, it helps to remember that Reich didn't pull his ideas out of a hat, they're very much indebted to the Marxist and Socialist Freudians around him and to his work with "Sexpol," the mobile sex-education clinics he set up in Vienna in the late 1920s.

Cordially,

[Desperado]

The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.

He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.
...

The Communists have no need to introduce free love; it has existed almost from time immemorial.
...
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 system of free love. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of free love springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.


The end of a forced and exploited nuclear family is advocated, the total end of the nuclear family is not discussed.

[Rooster]

Quote from Liebknecht

Now we had enough of our “beer trip” for the time being, and in order to cool our heated blood, we started on a double quick march, until Edgar Bauer stumbled over some paving stones. “Hurrah, an idea!” And in memory of mad student pranks he picked up a stone, and Clash! Clatter! a gas lantern went flying into splinters. Nonsense is contagious – Marx and I did not stay behind, and we broke four or five street lamps – it was, perhaps, 2 o'clock in the morning and the streets were deserted in consequence. But the noise nevertheless attracted the attention of a policeman who with quick resolution gave the signal to his colleagues on the same beat. And immediately countersignals were given. The position became critical.

Happily we took in the situation at a glance; and happily we knew the locality. We raced ahead, three or four policemen some distance behind us. Marx showed an agility that I should not have attributed to him.

Marx on the Piss (http://libcom.org/history/marx-piss-london-pub-crawl-karl-marx-late-1850s-wilhelm-liebknecht)

[caramelpence]

If a socialist actually disagrees with Marx's own personal views on art, for example, it does not in any way make him/her a "heretic". Marx is not a prophet who is "always right" on everything

I agree. In any case, Marx's views on, say, art, are hardly developed or coherent enough to suggest a definitive position, even if we did want to accept his views. But I feel the fundamental point here is that revolutionaries should have views on morality (and aesthetics, and so on) and that the Marxist tradition should encompass morality as part of its area of study and activity because socialism is more than just stopping people from dying of hunger and then having them do whatever they please - for Marx, and all of the most imaginative socialist writers of the 19th and 20th centuries, from Fourier to JS Mill and RH Tawney, socialism has been about the elevation of the human soul and the cultivation of all that is best in human beings.

I don't think socialism is unique in this regard, as all political ideologies are underpinned by different understandings of what constitutes the good life, with different degrees of self-consciousness and explicit articulation. So when someone asks whether we as socialists have views on drugs then the answer should be yes - and personally speaking I think the answer should be that someone whose life is based around the consumption of highly addictive and damaging drugs is not living in a way that promotes the development of their human and individual faculties and that their life is not one to be admired or aspired to for that reason. A life of that kind of not consistent with the values that socialists hold or should hold dear - community, development of artistic and intellectual faculties, autonomy, and so on. If socialists reject all consideration of issues like drugs and sex, in terms of their repercussions for individual and collective morality, and do not articulate a vision of human flourishing, then what is the moral and aesthetic basis for socialism, beyond meeting the most fundamental human needs?

Incidentally, I'm also wary of characterizing Marxism as a science, but maybe that's another issue.

[Queercommie Girl]

But I feel the fundamental point here is that revolutionaries should have views on morality (and aesthetics, and so on) and that the Marxist tradition should encompass morality as part of its area of study and activity because socialism is more than just stopping people from dying of hunger and then having them do whatever they please -

If socialists reject all consideration of issues like drugs and sex, in terms of their repercussions for individual and collective morality, and do not articulate a vision of human flourishing, then what is the moral and aesthetic basis for socialism, beyond meeting the most fundamental human needs?


Of course every socialist has his/her views on ethics, but then different socialists have different views on this topic. I think it is counter-productive to focus too much on this issue because it could lead to even more sectarianism (and the existence of excessive sectarianism is already a major problem for socialists today). So as long as people don't have reactionary or discriminatory views, I don't really make any effort to try to make other socialists follow my personal views on ethics and aesthetics.

In a system of genuine worker's democracy, there simply isn't a "single correct answer" on many ethical and aesthetic questions. Different people have different views. This is of course what "democracy" actually implies in one sense, namely one must have respect to some extent for different viewpoints on many issues.



Incidentally, I'm also wary of characterizing Marxism as a science, but maybe that's another issue.
Strategically Marxist activism should follow the general scientific method, that's what I meant when I said Marxism is a science. This is of course a matter of utility, not a matter of ultimate goal - which for socialists is always genuine power, democracy, equality, welfare and rights for all workers. But how we should go about achieving worker's power is indeed a scientific problem. This is what fundamentally sets apart Marx and Engels and their scientific socialism from the utopian socialists before them. For socialism to be successful in the real world, socialists must analyse economic and political situations scientifically and objectively, and effectively work out the best way to proceed in any kind of situation for the working class in general.

Nobel ideals mean nothing if one does not have the pragmatic means to achieve them in reality. Marxism is a materialist and realist philosophy. It is in a sense more like the Art of War than the Bible or Plato's Republic. Marxism is about achieving genuine political victory for the working class. If capitalism cannot be overthrown, then all idealist utopian talk is all for nothing.

[caramelpence]

I think it is counter-productive to focus too much on this issue because it could lead to even more sectarianism (and the existence of excessive sectarianism is already a major problem for socialists today).

Simply saying that discussing what the moral and ethical bases of revolutionary socialism should be is liable to cause disagreement (which is what I presume you mean by "sectarianism", although that's an inflated use of the word) is not a conclusive argument against the need to have those discussions, especially when they are very important discussions to have. As I've made clear, I think that Marx's work does encompass a range of important moral insights, but I would also argue that one reason that he did not devote more comprehensive attention to moral and aesthetic issues or order his views into something like a structured argument is that his ideas were underpinned by a kind of historical teleology or belief in historical immanency that was imported from the Hegelian system but which lacks a philosophical or metaphysical basis within Marx's own work, and so, having acknowledged this dimension of Marx's work, which is one of its most important weaknesses, and also being faced with the manifold failures of "socialism" in the last century, it seems to me that considerations of morality - by which I mean what the goals of a socialist society should be in terms of self-actualization and human flourishing, rather than ontological moral philosophy - seems more important than ever. If having those discussions reveals deep divides and tensions within the socialist tradition that might otherwise have remained less visible, then so be it, but personally, I don't think the fact that socialists have different ethical positions need be a barrier to the articulation of a distinctively socialist and persuasive conception of human flourishing - that conception can be a product of dialogue, and it can also incorporate an awareness of the need to respect cultural heterogeneity and the historical specificity of moral beliefs.

You say that all that is needed is for socialists to reject discrimination and reaction, and yet, aside from the fact that many contemporary and historical socialists have not adequately rejected those evils, there emerges the question of what moral reasons socialists can provide for the rejection of discrimination and reaction - it can't be argued that the rejection of discrimination is grounded in fundamental biological needs that all who are engaged in political thinking might conceivably reach an agreement on, such as the need to prevent people from literally starving to death, because it is perfectly possible that someone might be able to remain alive despite living in a highly discriminatory society, and so in order for socialists to pose an effective case against discrimination it is necessary that they think about the kind of lives human beings should lead (especially the role of status, which pertains especially to discrimination) and the ways in which different forms of discrimination prevent them from leading those lives.


In a system of genuine worker's democracy, there simply isn't a "single correct answer" on many ethical and aesthetic questions

Of course, and my suggestion isn't that people should be forced or pressured into determinate modes of life, but, given that state neutrality can only ever be an illusion, socialists still need to think about what forms of activity and living a socialist society might encourage or provide for. I have no doubt that the vast majority of socialists would readily accept that it would great for a socialist society to provide books and art and musical performances for free, for example, whereas they would not say the same thing about other activities, like gambling, and so in this sense we all accept that there are some kinds of living that should be aspired to over others - it is just a case of putting forward well-rounded visions of flourishing that identify what human beings should do with their lives in order to be the best individuals that they can be, in a broad sense.


This is of course a matter of utility, not a matter of ultimate goal - which for socialists is always genuine power, democracy, equality, welfare and rights for all workers.

Terms like welfare and power and equality are contested terms with a range of possible meanings, and they are also incorporated by all political ideologies - how can they be given a definite socialist content and linked to the socialist political project without consideration of moral and aesthetic values?

As I said, I'd prefer not to get sucked into a discussion about "scientific socialism" at the moment, but I will say that I reject your implicit separation between the process of coming to power and the construction of a morally desirable socialist society, as they necessarily feed into one another.

[gorillafuck]

Was extramarital sex prohibited in the USSR? If so, why?No it wasn't.


Do the Marxist principles advocate that?No. It doesn't have any advocation in regards to sex but sane communists don't give a shit about peoples promiscuous or not promiscuous sexual habits.

[Queercommie Girl]

especially when they are very important discussions to have.


Not as important as actually fighting against capitalism and imperialism around the world.



I think that Marx's work does encompass a range of important moral insights,
Yes, but not all of it is actually objectively correct.

After all, Marx himself might indeed be quite homophobic (though there is no conclusive words on this matter AFAIK), does this mean homophobia should be considered to be the correct moral line by Marxists and socialists?



but I would also argue that one reason that he did not devote more comprehensive attention to moral and aesthetic issues or order his views into something like a structured argument is that his ideas were underpinned by a kind of historical teleology or belief in historical immanency that was imported from the Hegelian system but which lacks a philosophical or metaphysical basis within Marx's own work, and so, having acknowledged this dimension of Marx's work, which is one of its most important weaknesses,
Marx did not devote a lot of effort to ethics and aesthetics because he was not trying to be a religious prophet or Plato II, his primary concern was a detailed scientific analysis of capitalist class society so that the working class would have the necessary theoretical and ideological tools and weapons to struggle against capitalism.

Marxist historical materialism isn't actually teleological, that's a common critique made against Marxism by non-socialists which isn't actually correct.

And indeed, it's a very good thing that Marxism doesn't have the abstract metaphysical idealistic BS that is prevalent in Hegelianism. It is Hegelianism that is teleological, not Marxism.



and also being faced with the manifold failures of "socialism" in the last century, it seems to me that considerations of morality - by which I mean what the goals of a socialist society should be in terms of self-actualization and human flourishing, rather than ontological moral philosophy - seems more important than ever.
I don't think socialism failed in the 20th century primarily due to the lack of a clear and systematic "socialist ethics". I think that's putting a rather abstract pedantic spin on what is actually a very empirical issue. I think the real political reasons are much more concrete than that. (E.g. lack of genuine worker's democracy)



If having those discussions reveals deep divides and tensions within the socialist tradition that might otherwise have remained less visible, then so be it, but personally, I don't think the fact that socialists have different ethical positions need be a barrier to the articulation of a distinctively socialist and persuasive conception of human flourishing - that conception can be a product of dialogue, and it can also incorporate an awareness of the need to respect cultural heterogeneity and the historical specificity of moral beliefs.

You say that all that is needed is for socialists to reject discrimination and reaction, and yet, aside from the fact that many contemporary and historical socialists have not adequately rejected those evils, there emerges the question of what moral reasons socialists can provide for the rejection of discrimination and reaction - it can't be argued that the rejection of discrimination is grounded in fundamental biological needs that all who are engaged in political thinking might conceivably reach an agreement on, such as the need to prevent people from literally starving to death, because it is perfectly possible that someone might be able to remain alive despite living in a highly discriminatory society, and so in order for socialists to pose an effective case against discrimination it is necessary that they think about the kind of lives human beings should lead (especially the role of status, which pertains especially to discrimination) and the ways in which different forms of discrimination prevent them from leading those lives.
There is nothing wrong with discussing and debating these issues, as long as they don't get in the way of actual political activism.

Of course, I don't think you would ever reach a stage where everyone agrees on the same set of principles regarding this issue. Ethics is never an abstract or purely "rational" debate, since not everything humans do are directly "rational" in a simplistic linear logical sense. Using recreational drugs might seem to be very "irrational" to you, but in a society with genuine worker's democracy one cannot simply get on a moral high horse and just dictate to other people that such uses of drugs are morally wrong and therefore must be prohibited.

If ethics is seen as primarily a rational philosophical debate, where do you draw the line? One could in the abstract sense argue that since homosexuality doesn't direct contribute to human reproduction and may even cause certain serious illnesses such as AIDS, therefore homosexuality must be "irrational" and consequently not a type of morally sound behaviour.



Terms like welfare and power and equality are contested terms with a range of possible meanings, and they are also incorporated by all political ideologies - how can they be given a definite socialist content and linked to the socialist political project without consideration of moral and aesthetic values?

As I said, I'd prefer not to get sucked into a discussion about "scientific socialism" at the moment, but I will say that I reject your implicit separation between the process of coming to power and the construction of a morally desirable socialist society, as they necessarily feed into one another.Purely in terms of the mere definitions of what socialism is, there is nothing really special about Marxist socialism compared with the utopian versions of socialism that emerged in various parts of the world long before Marx's time. What sets Marxism apart is no other than its methodological and scientific approach to socialism and how to actually achieve it in reality.

The exact definitions of socialism are hardly the primary problems facing socialist activists today, as even those who are relatively uneducated or those with literally a very low IQ can have a good common sensical and intuitive understanding of what genuine socialism actually implies. The most serious challenge facing socialists is not how to create better theoretical definitions for socialist concepts, which is an abstract philosophical task, but rather it is how to actually fight against capitalism and build genuine socialism in practice.

As Marx himself said, philosophers only interpret the world, but the key is to actually change it. Or as the ancient Chinese saying goes: "It is easy to have knowledge, but difficult to put knowledge into action."