Question about marriage?

[Juche]

I've wondered what people here think about it?

Personally I think it should be abolished all together as it seems to be tied heavily into religion and traditional values which should also be eliminated imo.

If we are to achieve pure equality then having two people as married could set differences within the society. Possibly as a status lifter. Also historically it's been used as a weapon against women. I think it's an outdated practice that belongs int he history books.

Of course I'm not necessarily advocating for "free love" either as that may induce problems.

[jookyle]

I really have no problem with two people wanting to dedicate themselves to each other. In fact, I rather like it. It's terribly romantic.

[Lucretia]

I've wondered what people here think about it?

Personally I think it should be abolished all together as it seems to be tied heavily into religion and traditional values which should also be eliminated imo.

If we are to achieve pure equality then having two people as married could set differences within the society. Possibly as a status lifter. Also historically it's been used as a weapon against women. I think it's an outdated practice that belongs int he history books.

Of course I'm not necessarily advocating for "free love" either as that may induce problems.

Marriage should be a private institution left to the wishes of the parties involved. It should no longer be a civil institution.

[Juche]

I really have no problem with two people wanting to dedicate themselves to each other. In fact, I rather like it. It's terribly romantic.

I'm not saying two people shouldn't dedicate themselves to each other. I'm mostly against any special privileges or anything like that. Especially the religious part.

How it is currently, being married or not can effect you. For taxes, and etc. I think even the president has to be married in order to be president. I don't get why marriage or not should dictate that.

[Juche]

Marriage should be a private institution left to the wishes of the parties involved. It should no longer be a civil institution.

I think I can agree with that.

[Questionable]

I raised this same question in a thread entitled "Polyamory and Communism" and generated some pretty good discussion. You should take a look:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/polyamory-and-communism-t174707/index.html

That being said, marriage is a product of the capitalist epoch and will necessarily change with the shift to socialism and then communism.

[Catma]

"Marriage" in our current society is a lot more complicated than it seems. I'm inclined to say that the state shouldn't have anything to do with it, though I'll admit I haven't looked at every possible implication.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Family relationships should be defined by the people in them, not the state or the church.

[leftistman]

I see nothing wrong with people deciding to spend their lives together and raise families together. I simply don't believe that it should be a civil institution.

[helot]

That being said, marriage is a product of the capitalist epoch and will necessarily change with the shift to socialism and then communism.

I'm sorry to be a pedant but marriage isnt a product of the capitalist epoch as it predates capitalism by thousands of years. Having said that, it would cease to exist as we know it in a communist society due to marriage being inherently linked to class-based societies.

[Yazman]

Marriage appears to me to be a private affair between two individuals, and I don't think it's our job as revolutionary leftists to decide on whether people can get married or not. I don't think marriage needs to be recognised by the state - secular civil unions and those sorts of things do the job just fine for tax purposes etc.

But I don't think that it's really something that we have any right to decide on whether people can enter into a marriage when looking at it as a cultural or social tradition or ritual.

[Psy]

Marriage appears to me to be a private affair between two individuals, and I don't think it's our job as revolutionary leftists to decide on whether people can get married or not. I don't think marriage needs to be recognised by the state - secular civil unions and those sorts of things do the job just fine for tax purposes etc.

But I don't think that it's really something that we have any right to decide on whether people can enter into a marriage when looking at it as a cultural or social tradition or ritual.
Yet how would churches survive a classless workers society?

When all the said and done the revolutionary armies would probably be occupying all the churches in workers society simply because churches have no proletariat meaning revolutionaries armies would have no choice but to liberate church property by force.

Meaning the idea of getting married in church seems silly in a revolution when churches most likely be shelters looking after the needy run by the workers state. Even once the revolution is over I fail to see how churches would return to being able to perform this marriage function outside the authority of the workers state.

[Tim Cornelis]

I'm sorry to be a pedant but marriage isnt a product of the capitalist epoch as it predates capitalism by thousands of years. Having said that, it would cease to exist as we know it in a communist society due to marriage being inherently linked to class-based societies.

Actually, marriage predates class-based societies so it will in all likeliness continue to exist under communism--it seems to be a universal custom, common throughout all peoples, cultures, and times. But even if it weren't the case, it is dubious, in fact unsientific, to claim that because marriage didn't exist in primitive communism it will cease to exist in 'civilised' communism. By the same token we might argue that a communist revolution will lead to a return of paganism as the practiced religion. (Unless of course you could explain why class-societies necessitate or facilitate marriage, which you haven't done yet).


Yet how would churches survive a classless workers society?

How wouldn't they?


When all the said and done the revolutionary armies would probably be occupying all the churches in workers society simply because churches have no proletariat meaning revolutionaries armies would have no choice but to liberate church property by force.

Churches have "no proletariat meaning"? First, what does that even mean? Second, churches are valuable to many, the overwhelming majority in fact, of the working class and I see no reason why this will change under communism.


Meaning the idea of getting married in church seems silly in a revolution when churches most likely be shelters looking after the needy run by the workers state. Even once the revolution is over I fail to see how churches would return to being able to perform this marriage function outside the authority of the workers state.

The workers are the workers' state, and the workers are religious, therefore you can't expect them to do away with religious buildings. There are plenty of vacant (corporate) buildings, as well as mansions that could be used to "look after the needy" whatever that means (I sure hope it's not meant paternalistic).

People will want to have churches under communism, what right do you have to deny them this?

[Psy]

Churches have "no proletariat meaning"? First, what does that even mean?

Churches don't operate under wage slavery due to churches predating capitalism by centuries. Instead churches are the preserved remains of a portion of feudal class structure where the church extracts value by convincing its lower members to contribute value to the church in which the church really doesn't provide anything in return as most of the value instead of going to production allows the higher ranking members to be free from labor.



Second, churches are valuable to many, the overwhelming majority in fact, of the working class and I see no reason why this will change under communism.
Churches only provide a placebo, they produce nothing of value.



The workers are the workers' state, and the workers are religious, therefore you can't expect them to do away with religious buildings. There are plenty of vacant (corporate) buildings, as well as mansions that could be used to "look after the needy" whatever that means (I sure hope it's not meant paternalistic).

People will want to have churches under communism, what right do you have to deny them this?Look at St. James Cathedral during Occupy Toronto where they allied with the bourgeoisie state when they were forced to pick a side. Or look at the Russian Orthodox Church that funded the White Army during the Russian Civilwar.

From the standpoint of revolutions churches can't be allowed access to their property as historically they used that property in the war effort against the revolution thus has to be considered hostile to revolutions.

Also class consciousness of workers should make them skeptic to churches as if they can't see the class interest of churches then how would they see the class interest of the capitalists?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Second, churches are valuable to many, the overwhelming majority in fact, of the working class and I see no reason why this will change under communism.
You don't think such a radical change in material conditions as communism would lead to a radical change in how people think? I think religion is something that would wither away under such conditions.

[Catma]

It will take generations, though.

[MaximMK]

It should not be abolished. There was this other topic promoting polygamy too. It should be a personal choice if you don't want to marry don't, if you want to share your wifes do it but don't impose it on others. It is not in any way connected to religion too atheist too get married. If we abolish states marriage wouldn't exist as today as an official union in the state so it would be just a promise of loyalty between partners.