Bourgeois Marriage

[Capitalist Octopus]

As it stands, the nuclear family is usually or almost always an oppressive relation upon which capitalism depends.

1)In the family there is usually quite a bit of domestic work which is needed to keep the family afloat. Cooking, cleaning, taking care of children, etc. Most of these duties fall upon women. These duties are regarded as personal services in the private sphere, in the sense that they are exterior to the market. This means domestic work gets no reward in terms of wage, etc. Furthermore, those who work in the market, and doing domestic work, do the infamous double shift. Capitalism relies upon this because it can essentially get labour for free.

2) Family helps keep capitalism afloat by providing a safe space for those who ar eunemployed, layed off, etc to retreat too. If this was not there, perhaps they'd be in the streets.

3)Reduces the sex life of women to productive purposes

4)Etc etc

So the traditional family keeps women oppressed, keeps capitalism afloat, etc.


How do you change it? What are the alternatives? Would changing the way in which romantic relationships function be able to change the traditional family and thus avoid this problem? Give your ideas.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

How do you change it?
Smash the bourgeois system. Build a communist one. Then the new material reality will lead to new forms of family relationships.

[Capitalist Octopus]

I want to tackle this question from a communization approach.
Ie, the idea that smashing the bourgeois system comes through building the communist one, and building the communist one comes through changing the relations, structure, etc of day to day life.

As such, I'm not content with saying, ok let's wait until after the revolution to try to improve the lives of house wives, because that's the only time it's possible. Instead, I want to outline a way in which that process can begin RIGHT NOW even if it's only a few people engaging in it.

So my idea on how to do that, is by changing the nature of relationships so that they will not naturally lead to bourgeois marriage, which essentially keeps the oppressive family structure in place.

In terms of how to change relationships to have this effect, this is where I'm digging. For example, I think for one, monogamy should be discouraged. Divorce needs to be extremely accessible. Marriage if it does exist should only exist legally through civil law, no religious ones. Do you get where I'm going?

[Leftsolidarity]

So what you're saying is that you want to get rid of the social relations of capitalism before getting rid of capitalism?

Why shouldn't religious marriages be allowed and how would you enforce that?

I don't plan to get married because it doesn't flow with my personal views and I don't have the desire to do that. Though, the idea that you can somehow rid the world of bourgeois social relations without getting rid of the bourgeoisie is silly.

The abolition of the family (if even desired) would be something that naturally comes from the changing of relations to production. Before you change that you will still have the social relations of the current ruling class.

[ParaRevolutionary]

3)Reduces the sex life of women to productive purposes.

Are you serious?

[Zulu]

How do you change it?

Step 1: Cancel all legal recognition of marital status.

Step 2: Cancel all legal clauses of inheritance of property.

Step 3: Promote state-funded boarding schools, orphanages, summer camps for children and such.

Step 4: Create better social opportunities (scholarships, etc.) for children who have been involved more in the public education system (see step 3) than in private upbringing.

Something like that.

[The Guy]

I hate to interrupt your feminist antics, but have you considered that some people may choose to live their lives this way?

[Red Rabbit]

I didn't realize that when I got married it immediately made me a sexist bourgeoisie. Seriously, what the fuck?

[manic expression]

1)In the family there is usually quite a bit of domestic work which is needed to keep the family afloat. Cooking, cleaning, taking care of children, etc. Most of these duties fall upon women. These duties are regarded as personal services in the private sphere, in the sense that they are exterior to the market. This means domestic work gets no reward in terms of wage, etc. Furthermore, those who work in the market, and doing domestic work, do the infamous double shift. Capitalism relies upon this because it can essentially get labour for free.
It's not free as such, the idea is that the wife does housework, raised the kids and in exchange the husband supports the family monetarily. Thus, the house is paid for by the husband but it's the domain of the wife. That, at least supposedly, is the deal.

No matter our view on this, we should make the distinction.


2) Family helps keep capitalism afloat by providing a safe space for those who ar eunemployed, layed off, etc to retreat too. If this was not there, perhaps they'd be in the streets.They oftentimes end up on the streets anyway. And plus, it's how people respond to hardship...if someone loses their job then maybe they can stay with a family member. You're not going to get rid of that, that will be part of human interaction whenever there is hardship to be found, in virtually any system and in virtually any society.


3)Reduces the sex life of women to productive purposesThat's not really true...Casanova and lots of other sexually active men of his age weren't going buck wild all over the 18th Century with women who only had sex for productive purposes.


How do you change it? What are the alternatives? Would changing the way in which romantic relationships function be able to change the traditional family and thus avoid this problem? Give your ideas.No idea...but I don't think one size fits all. If two people want to get married with rings and a dress and a tux and churchbells, that's cool with me. If other people don't, that's cool too.

The one thing people should be aware of is that "liberation" from older modes of courtship doesn't always get rid of modes of courtship, it just replaces one with another. It's not as simple as just wanting "liberation", it's quite a bit more complex than that.

[NorwegianCommunist]

If the wife also has a job then it's like a double shift.
A lot of men like that the women do the most work around the house because then they don't need to.
I would like for men to do more housework and help around the house even if the women chooses to live like this.

[Zulu]

I hate to interrupt your feminist antics, but have you considered that some people may choose to live their lives this way?

Have you considered that some people may have been conditioned to choose to live their lives this way? And that they have no more "right" to condition their children to replicate this pattern of behavior, than the socialist society will have to condition them to choose patters of behavior that will suit the needs of society better?

[Capitalist Octopus]

Step 1: Cancel all legal recognition of marital status.

Step 2: Cancel all legal clauses of inheritance of property.

Step 3: Promote state-funded boarding schools, orphanages, summer camps for children and such.

Step 4: Create better social opportunities (scholarships, etc.) for children who have been involved more in the public education system (see step 3) than in private upbringing.

Something like that.

Hmm, interesting. I guess the idea is to push housework into the public sphere so there's no double shift, but how to do that within capitalism is the question.

[Capitalist Octopus]

I hate to interrupt your feminist antics, but have you considered that some people may choose to live their lives this way?

I hate to interrupt your communist antics, but have you considered that some workers may choose to live their lives this way?

[Capitalist Octopus]

I didn't realize that when I got married it immediately made me a sexist bourgeoisie. Seriously, what the fuck?

It didn't. But marriage under capitalism, ie bourgeois marriage, is sexist.

[Leftsolidarity]

but how to do that within capitalism is the question.

No it's not. That's the problem. Escapism and trying to "reform" out the bad parts of capitalism is not the solution.

[Capitalist Octopus]

It's not free as such, the idea is that the wife does housework, raised the kids and in exchange the husband supports the family monetarily. Thus, the house is paid for by the husband but it's the domain of the wife. That, at least supposedly, is the deal.

No matter our view on this, we should make the distinction.

They oftentimes end up on the streets anyway. And plus, it's how people respond to hardship...if someone loses their job then maybe they can stay with a family member. You're not going to get rid of that, that will be part of human interaction whenever there is hardship to be found, in virtually any system and in virtually any society.

That's not really true...Casanova and lots of other sexually active men of his age weren't going buck wild all over the 18th Century with women who only had sex for productive purposes.

No idea...but I don't think one size fits all. If two people want to get married with rings and a dress and a tux and churchbells, that's cool with me. If other people don't, that's cool too.

The one thing people should be aware of is that "liberation" from older modes of courtship doesn't always get rid of modes of courtship, it just replaces one with another. It's not as simple as just wanting "liberation", it's quite a bit more complex than that.

You see the problem though right? The woman does the house work, the man provides, the woman has no income, the woman is dependent on the man, and it spirals out of control from there.

[Capitalist Octopus]

No it's not. That's the problem. Escapism and trying to "reform" out the bad parts of capitalism is not the solution.

I'm asking this question, and presenting it in this way, because I need to write a manifesto for a class on ways to change a social or political ill. Here's the description:

"Group manifesto/programme/statement: On the last day of class, you and at least one other member of the class will turn in a joint manifesto, programme, or statement of principles. It will, in 600-1000 words, lay out as clearly and succinctly as possible the strategies and tactics by which you would collectively pursue social or political transformation. Each statement must be signed by at least two students. There is no maximum number of signatories. It is your responsibility to find your own collaborator(s)."


Like I said above, I want to work at this from the communization approach. So communism isn't a future stage, communism is destroying capitalism by revolutionizing everything. This can include family, marriage, relationships.

So essentially this is just a theoretical fun question.

[Leftsolidarity]

I'm asking this question, and presenting it in this way, because I need to write a manifesto for a class on ways to change a social or political ill. Here's the description:

"Group manifesto/programme/statement: On the last day of class, you and at least one other member of the class will turn in a joint manifesto, programme, or statement of principles. It will, in 600-1000 words, lay out as clearly and succinctly as possible the strategies and tactics by which you would collectively pursue social or political transformation. Each statement must be signed by at least two students. There is no maximum number of signatories. It is your responsibility to find your own collaborator(s)."


Like I said above, I want to work at this from the communization approach. So communism isn't a future stage, communism is destroying capitalism by revolutionizing everything. This can include family, marriage, relationships.

So essentially this is just a theoretical fun question.

Ah, well if you are doing this for school that is different. Why not switch it to something about working class ownership of workplaces?

If you stick with that and don't care about how it would actually manifest in the real world or if it's desirable then go with what Zulu said. Not that I actually agree with that approach though.

[Red Rabbit]

It didn't. But marriage under capitalism, ie bourgeois marriage, is sexist.

That's just generalizing. Not every marriage under capitalism is sexist.

For example, my wife and I both do equal amounts of housework, and neither of us makes the other feel like they have to do anything.

Also, my wife's sex life has definitely not been reduced to productive purposes, it's literally the opposite. Not really sure where you would have gotten this idea at all.

However, I do agree in a perfect world, housework would be considered just as much a job as any other, but that's not going to happen under capitalism.

[Capitalist Octopus]

Ah, well if you are doing this for school that is different. Why not switch it to something about working class ownership of workplaces?

If you stick with that and don't care about how it would actually manifest in the real world or if it's desirable then go with what Zulu said. Not that I actually agree with that approach though.

I just finished a research paper on how open marriage was conceived in the USSR for the first few years, and so I'm sort of in to the topic right now.

I originally wanted to focus on something like attacking monogamy, but after reading a relevant Marxist feminist I sort of got side tracked into the family sphere. Think there's a way to get out?

[manic expression]

You see the problem though right? The woman does the house work, the man provides, the woman has no income, the woman is dependent on the man, and it spirals out of control from there.
In that setup, yes, the wife is monetarily dependent on the husband. The husband is dependent in other ways, though, such as the wellbeing of his children and the functioning of his home. The idea is that a marriage can be at harmony if the tasks are carried out well enough.

Does it "spin out of control"? Hard to say, but I do think that one of the most difficult things in this area is that families are now being expected to juggle the traditional structure and the more contemporary ideal of everyone having their own individual income. People seem to be increasingly confused about their roles in society and that leads to dissatisfaction.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Well, Stalin advocated communal kitchens over private kitchens in order to liberate women. Do you guys think that would work. I think it sounds like a good idea.

[Capitalist Octopus]

Here are my suggestions thus far. I'd like your opinions on them.

My manifesto starts off by introducing communisation as the framework with which to approach the end of the nuclear family with. It advocates for changing and bettering the relationships you are already in, instead of merely calling for this to happen, or waiting for communists to "take power" for it to happen.

Then, I introduce what the nuclear family is, and the problem with it. I explain the problem as that it keeps the women dependent upon the man by keeping her labour outside of the market. if she enters the market she performs a double shift. making domestic work in the market under capitalism is only giving the capitalists more control of day to day life. so the solution is to abolish the nuclear family entirely.

I then go on to say that this depends on many things, but the most important way is to avoid it in your life. The first step is to not participate in monogamy. " 1) Monogamy causes one to seek to have a monopoly on the body and romantic feelings of their partner. There may be a stage in the relationship where this monopoly is natural in that each partner may have no desire to share their body or romantic feelings with anyone besides their partner. If this stage is ever to exist, it is a momentary one. The desire to retain the monopoly on affection, however, is usually permanent, and thus partners are viewed as property."


By avoiding monogamy which is the path to marriage, one can likely avoid marriage, and the material/legal/property based spin and limits it puts on relationships. the aim is for marriage to lose legal status, but since this is concerned with what one can do themselves day to day, avoid marriage and monogamy.



I then go on to say that even with these changes, the way in which one deals with children is the most important in preventing exploitation of women and the resumption of the nuclear family.



I claim that with open relationships, the task of raising a child will become a communal one instead of a private one. The two partners, their families, other involved partners families, public institutions like daycare, etc. This can make the process one where the woman is not exploited as much, can still pursue her interests etc. Basically child raising is no longer a sacrifice.



I'm low on word count, but any other ideas?

[Pretty Flaco]

You see the problem though right? The woman does the house work, the man provides, the woman has no income, the woman is dependent on the man, and it spirals out of control from there.

in the US things definitely aren't like that for the majority of working class or middle class households. i never had a "stay at home mom" and none of my close friends did either. both of my parents worked and believe it or not but in my house my dad did most of the cleaning. i hadn't had a "family meal" more than a handfull of times.

sure there are a good amount of households that still run on that dynamic, but saying all modern marriages are like that isn't true.

[Capitalist Octopus]

in the US things definitely aren't like that for the majority of working class or middle class households. i never had a "stay at home mom" and none of my close friends did either. both of my parents worked and believe it or not but in my house my dad did most of the cleaning. i hadn't had a "family meal" more than a handfull of times.

sure there are a good amount of households that still run on that dynamic, but saying all modern marriages are like that isn't true.

Most families aren't like that and the world extends beyond the US.