Marriage and Marxism - how does it work?

[CubanDream]

Here's another head scratcher.:confused:

Marriage and Marxism, surely they are incompatible?

It seems that marriage is a kind of capitalist invention, all based around property rights, domination, exploitation, and liberal based ideas.

Therefore, shouldn't a modern day Socialist be calling for this institution to be ended?

[Creative Destruction]

marriage wasn't a capitalist invention. the relations and reasons for getting married changed under capitalism, but that doesn't mean that marriage is incompatible with Marxism anymore than producing goods is incompatible with Marxism. a modern day socialist should call for an evolution of marriage, just as they would call for an evolution of all social relations, and also not to privilege marriages over those who do not want to be married.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

It seems that marriage is a kind of capitalist invention, all based around property rights, domination, exploitation, and liberal based ideas.
Marriage predates capitalism by thousands of years, but, yes, marriage reflects the property relations of a given society.


Therefore, shouldn't a modern day Socialist be calling for this institution to be ended?
Yes, marriage should be abolished, but that can't be done without abolishing the capitalist system.

[CubanDream]

a modern day socialist should call for an evolution of marriage, just as they would call for an evolution of all social relations, and also not to privilege marriages over those who do not want to be married.

What kind of evolution?

and for those who don't want to be married? - are you saying that all marriage benefits should be scrapped, in order to even up the playing field? because that could be one way, but then of course , marriage wouldn't really exist anymore, other than perhaps just a scrap of meaningless paper.

I quite like the communal marriage idea - how about that?

[CubanDream]

Yes, marriage should be abolished, but that can't be done without abolishing the capitalist system.

doesn't marriage, as it now stands, discriminate against the single person?

[Comrade #138672]

doesn't marriage, as it now stands, discriminate against the single person?And it discriminates against LGBT people.

[CubanDream]

So how about just getting rid of the whole damn thing?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

So how about just getting rid of the whole damn thing?
Since marriage is bound up in property relations, you need to abolish those property relations first.

[Creative Destruction]

What kind of evolution?

and for those who don't want to be married? - are you saying that all marriage benefits should be scrapped, in order to even up the playing field? because that could be one way, but then of course , marriage wouldn't really exist anymore, other than perhaps just a scrap of meaningless paper.

I quite like the communal marriage idea - how about that?

Well, in a sense, an evolution of marriage would mean doing away with the legal privileging of married people against "single" people. Thus, a marriage would be a binding promise between people (mono or poly, doesn't matter) to stick with each other for life, if possible, rather than being a legally and financially advantageous contact being entered into. Marx and Engels addresses this as bourgeois marriage.

I married my wife because I love her, want to start a family and want to stick with her for the rest of my life. That's what is signifies for us. We didn't come into it for money and it probably would have been financially advantageous for us to have not gotten married. So, these kinds of relationships exist despite the capitalist property relations, although those are a kind of side benefit, in terms of inheritance, tax breaks for when we have kids, etc. Those latter things should be done away with for married couples.

[Slavic]

Well, in a sense, an evolution of marriage would mean doing away with the legal privileging of married people against "single" people. Thus, a marriage would be a binding promise between people (mono or poly, doesn't matter) to stick with each other for life, if possible, rather than being a legally and financially advantageous contact being entered into. Marx and Engels addresses this as bourgeois marriage.

I married my wife because I love her, want to start a family and want to stick with her for the rest of my life. That's what is signifies for us. We didn't come into it for money and it probably would have been financially advantageous for us to not get married. So, these kinds of relationships exist despite the capitalist property relations, although those are a kind of side benefit, in terms of inheritance, tax breaks for when we have kids, etc. Those latter things should be done away with for married couples.

Agreed, those are the same reasons why I got married and the same reasons why I am now getting a divorce. We didn't get married for material beneifts but because it was a cultural act and statement that we are dedicating our lives to one another.

[CubanDream]

Why the need to make a statement though, I mean who really cares about that?

[Creative Destruction]

Why the need to make a statement though, I mean who really cares about that?

The ones getting married, their families, their community, etc.

[Sea]

Marriage is despised by all communists. It is a sexist institution and deserves nothing but contempt. The fact that Marx married is completely irrelevant.

If you marry, you are no longer a card-carrying communist.

This post is logarithm-shaped.

The day is done.

That's all.

It's over.

Fin.

[CubanDream]

too right, I agree - Pol Pot had the right idea on this one, marry the Party but anything else is just western, lib decadence........

[Jimmie Higgins]

doesn't marriage, as it now stands, discriminate against the single person?
I don't really think it's discrimination against single people. Though marriage in some countries comes with legal rights; but I think it would really be a case of incentivization and social management. I'd say the marriage as an institution does emphasize the bourgeois family unit as the way to survive in this system and therefore does connect with oppression of a broad range of people who do not or can not live in that way (sexual minorities specifically). And marriage and the family as a modern institution are deeply connected with the oppression of women.

But I don't think it can be abolished within capitalism, so I don't really see much gain in attacking the institution abstractly. Even if marriage is abolished (or more realistically, any legal privileges eliminated) the system would still favor people living together in a kind of family unit because it's hard to be a full time worker and also do the daily work of maintaining yourself... Especially if you have children. It's hard to deal with getting ill or growing old without some unconditional non market support.

So our goal I think should not to propagandize or try and end marriage, but to try and help organize class struggles around the pressures which make marriage or family - or at least striving to an idealized version of that - virtually socially necessary. Fights against things like demonizing unwed mothers or single parents helps take the social pressure off. Fights for things like more wages or retirement or health services or childcare at work allow working class people to live more independently rather than being compelled by necessity to organize families to deal with temporary unemployment, care for the young, sick, and elderly, and just daily chores and maintainence.

But people would still live in a more or less isolated society of lies and competition which would mean seeking refuge in families. A society where people cooperate and care for each other rather than compete lie and steal for wealth or wages would be one where love could just be about love and not about hoping to forge a little barrier against a hostile society. Workers of the world unite, in sickness and in health, from ruled to rulers, etc :lol:

[Zoroaster]

I don't agree with marriage personally. If you love someone and you want to live with each other, then do it! The only permission you need is yourself and your partner.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I think the point is to demolish the economic necessities underpinning marriage. This would turn it into a purely cultural institution which people may adopt out of a desire for social recognition of a loving relationship for those who want it, and would not lead to objective material disadvantages for those who do not wish to marry.

Over time it might die as an institution, it might become vanishingly irrelvant, or it might continue on as a symbol of romantic love, who knows? I don't think it matters so long as the oppressive hierarchies within marriage and atomization of families melts away.


I don't agree with marriage personally. If you love someone and you want to live with each other, then do it! The only permission you need is yourself and your partner.

Well, at least you are honest to your namesake!

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I was married once. Among other things, it gave me access to my partner's health insurance plan at a time I was having a lot of health issues.

[QueerVanguard]

Pretty simple. Marriage and monogamy, for that matter, arose with property and will end with property. Same goes for the gender binary. Communal property will result in more communal love lives which means polyamory is going to be what replaces monogamy and marriage. I know all the conservative pseudo-Marxists/neo-Proudhonians shit bricks at the thought of that but it's a dialectical fact Jack.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I think it's stupid to assume that monogamy would disappear in a communist society, the only change would be that it would no longer be enforced through law and custom. Statements like that make it sound like you're more interested in scaring people than adding anything constructive. The big bad communists are gonna come and make you share your partner with the rest of the community ooga booga.

[Rosa Partizan]

Pretty simple. Marriage and monogamy, for that matter, arose with property and will end with property. Same goes for the gender binary. Communal property will result in more communal love lives which means polyamory is going to be what replaces monogamy and marriage. I know all the conservative pseudo-Marxists/neo-Proudhonians shit bricks at the thought of that but it's a dialectical fact Jack.

while I understand that monogamy wouldn't be a matter of course anymore and that many more types of relationships would arise, I don't understand why there would be NO monogamy at all anymore. Wouldn't this all just mix up and exist together, like, some people would prefer dating more than one gender, some other people prefer one gender, be it their own or another one etc? Like, there would be no default when it comes to love and sexuality.

[Rosa Partizan]

I think it's stupid to assume that monogamy would disappear in a communist society, the only change would be that it would no longer be enforced through law and custom. Statements like that make it sound like you're more interested in scaring people than adding anything constructive. The big bad communists are gonna come and make you share your partner with the rest of the community ooga booga.

I kinda agree, but I think that people wouldn't think in terms of "possession" anymore, as words like "share" suggest. As for myself, I wouldn't want to live in an open or polyamorous relationship and no one could make me do that, although I find it pretty cool that there are people that abolish this monogamy matrix. But please don't make ME do this.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

It was meant to be from a bourgeois kind of perspective as that seems to be the group that posts like that are aimed at. It looks like something harkening back to western propaganda during the Russian civil war that the Bolsheviks had nationalized all women or some such shit. I think you had it right when you said it would be a mix of configurations rather than a new kind of relationship being enforced (by who exactly?)

[Rosa Partizan]

It was meant to be from a bourgeois kind of perspective as that seems to be the group that posts like that are aimed at. It looks like something harkening back to western propaganda during the Russian civil war that the Bolsheviks had nationalized all women or some such shit. I think you had it right when you said it would be a mix of configurations rather than a new kind of relationship being enforced (by who exactly?)

I think there would be no representation of an ideal relationship or sexuality, so that everyone could find out for themselves. This would pretty necessarily mean that far, far less people would be heterosexual and monogamous as it is the case nowadays. Maybe I myself would reject monogamy, I mean, now I'm like, I don't want polyamory, but how would I know my point of view in a non-heteronormative society? I think that any kind of sexuality and relationship type could be acceptable and have the same societal standing.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Pretty simple. Marriage and monogamy, for that matter, arose with property and will end with property. Same goes for the gender binary. Communal property will result in more communal love lives which means polyamory is going to be what replaces monogamy and marriage. I know all the conservative pseudo-Marxists/neo-Proudhonians shit bricks at the thought of that but it's a dialectical fact Jack.

I loves me some vulgar dialectics/marxism.

Why do you think societies with primitive communism had institutions like marriage and gender if monogamy is solely caused by private property? Every Marxist agrees about the relationship between the modern family, strict gender roles and private property, but it is a massive leap to say that the elimination of private property means all of humanity will adopt a hippy free love commune lifestyle. The general thesis is that people will no longer be economically and socially pressured to adopt one particular universal model, but it's a huge leap to then say that this concludes with worldwide polyamory.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I'm tots married and is pretty cool. My husband used to post on here. Sure he'd agree (maybe, lol).

[Revolver]

Modern (and recorded history) marriage may have quite a bit to do with property relations, but pair bonding predates modern marriage and extends into prehistory. That being said, it is hard to say what the elimination of scarcity would do to marriage as a social institution or to pair bonding, for that matter. I assume that polyamory and group arrangements would become more common, as would forms of serial monogamy, but I don't know that polyamory would become a norm. On the other hand, the human desire for sexual intercourse might be altered as well.

[Hexen]

If property is abolished so will Marriage along with it.

[Slavic]

If property is abolished so will Marriage along with it.

As a legalistic union not as a cultural union.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

If property is abolished so will Marriage along with it.

No, cuz I like the whole thing regardless of what happens. I think it's cute even if emotionally crazy. Like when penguins give a rock to there life mate. ^-^