Abolishing Marriage (Ver. 1)

[VukBZ2005]

Abolishing Marriage
By: Communist FireFox

*This anti-authoritarian union of love would allow a woman to be united
with a woman (or Womyn as some would call it), a man united with a
man and a man to be united with a woman - in other words - there
should be NO discrimination whatsoever.

**Although such a topic exists in Opposing Ideologies forum - this is
meant to inspire debate with other fellow comrades.

***I am Very unsure on would kind of anti-authoritarian procedure
would occur when it comes to dissolution. Therefore i would like to hear
your ideas on this...

1
For many generations, marriage has been a tradition in which a couple
permanently unites. But this tradition is a religious tradition which only
definition is the unification of a man and a women. After the abolition
of Capitalism and the state, it would most likely be inevitable that
marriage will cease to exist as viable institution.

2
What would be in the place of this authoritarian institution which is
based on patriarchy? I believe that a union (a union of which a partner
unites with another partner into a permanent, but dislovable couple*) -
an anti-authoritarian union of love so to speak would do well
to replace this aging and authoritarian institution we call marriage.

3
But what if a couple were united in a union of love but situations
beyond their sphere of control force them to ask for a dissolution,
then they could bring this issue to the local worker's council or popular
assembly and most likely they will dissolve it.***

[antieverything]

You haven't said anything deviating from the social-libertarian conception of marriage and civil union...and why would you need to? That being said, without economic necessity, it is likely that marriage will fade away on its own--which is not to say that people will no longer enter into monogamous relationships or raise children as a couple. Look at Sweden where women are less likely to marry (or divorce) yet fewer children are raised in single parent-households.

[VukBZ2005]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 06:58 PM
You haven't said anything deviating from the social-libertarian conception of marriage and civil union...and why would you need to? That being said, without economic necessity, it is likely that marriage will fade away on its own--which is not to say that people will no longer enter into monogamous relationships or raise children as a couple. Look at Sweden where women are less likely to marry (or divorce) yet fewer children are raised in single parent-households.
I am only assuming a situation in which a couple wants to be a permanent - but dissolvable union.
This is just a anti-authoritarian replacement for marraige.

[antieverything]

Marriages are currently "permanent but dissolvable" unions. Ever hear of a divorce?

Apparently we have a misunderstanding...feel free to clear that up as I'm not sure what you mean by dissolvable.

[redstar2000]

I think this is overly "formal".

Why shouldn't the intimate relationships of people in a communist society be a matter of concern only to the people involved?

They can form, change, and dissolve their relationships as they see fit...and there's no reason for others to be involved at all -- unless there's some kind of abuse involved.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I think this is overly "formal".

Why shouldn't the intimate relationships of people in a communist society be a matter of concern only to the people involved?

They can form, change, and dissolve their relationships as they see fit...and there's no reason for others to be involved at all -- unless there's some kind of abuse involved.

Exactly! No individuals should seek any confirmation or approval of their relationship from any higher body. Hopefully, in a communist society, the desire for people to make things official, by delegating power over themselves and their affairs to some external authority, will disapear.

[Zingu]

One thing marriage does help is security for a child, if people started leaving relationships at will when a more attractive mate came along, child raising would be very tough indeed, also the impact on the child.
For marriage to be abolished, society will have to have a even better sense of obligation and responsibility about relationships, and things like that won't magically pop into existance with a revolution, it will take time.


Eventually, marriage should be abolished, but not outrightly in a instant, lower the stiffness of civil marriage, making it more autonomous so couples won't be tangled up in sticky beaucractic sitiuations about social security and social services ect. if they wanted to get a divorce, make marriage status more simplier, the slow path of dismanteling marriage would be the best course, the next step would be to reqluish state's control over conducting civil marriages, which would be well on the road of abolishing marriage.

[Palmares]

Why would a couple need permission from a higher body to legitimise any sort of strong monogamous relationship they wish to partake in?

I believe a post-revolution society would have marriages evolve into de facto relationships.

Marriage will not be a legal thing (as it won't be recognised on a public basis), but if two people want to call themselves "husband and wife", it isn't our place to say otherwise.

The thing is, depending on the type of post-revolution society you believe in, there may not be the structures existing to recognise marriage.

[Zingu]

Yes, post-revolutionary, I was talking about the Socialist stage of a revolution, during the Worker's State, of course, we can head off in a whole other way of arguement if you are an anarchist.

[Counter-Corporate Jujitsu]

I agree marriage is stupid and there are many problems with it, but if people want to subject themsevles to that kind of thing then let them. The state has no right to interfere so much. This is the same thing as the state preventing homosexuals from getting married [thus denying them the choice of getting married or not].

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Zingu
One thing marriage does help is security for a child, if people started leaving relationships at will when a more attractive mate came along, child raising would be very tough indeed, also the impact on the child.

This has been a traditional argument in favor of "strengthening the family" and there is a point to it.

A proposal I made a couple of years ago suggested that there should be collectives established specifically for the purpose of raising kids -- you would join one of these collectives because you really liked kids.

I think that would be a far superior arrangement to what we have now; that is, people trying to raise kids who have no aptitude and little liking for the task.

We'd begin these collectives with unwanted kids and expand them with kids who were, for one reason or another, unhappy with their existing families and wanted to live elsewhere.

Eventually, this might become the "prevailing model" of child-raising...with only a few parents insisting on raising their own kids.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[radical_theorist_83]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 12:47 PM
A proposal I made a couple of years ago suggested that there should be collectives established specifically for the purpose of raising kids -- you would join one of these collectives because you really liked kids.

I think that would be a far superior arrangement to what we have now; that is, people trying to raise kids who have no aptitude and little liking for the task.

We'd begin these collectives with unwanted kids and expand them with kids who were, for one reason or another, unhappy with their existing families and wanted to live elsewhere.
That really is, in my opinion, probably one of the wisest solutions proposed. Privatized child-rearing, as it currently exists in Western society, is extremely vulnerable to abuses of parental power (so-called "parents' rights").

[Daymare17]

I agree totally with redstar. The family invests illegitimate authority in the parents. It also fills the socially necessary role of child-rearing, although only a dyed-in-the-wool reactionary can claim that this justifies it. This "family" practically invites the parents to abuse the children. It would be much better to let specialists raise all the kids.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

What would be in the place of this authoritarian institution which is
based on patriarchy?

Why do you claim marriage is based on patriarchy?



3
But what if a couple were united in a union of love but situations
beyond their sphere of control force them to ask for a dissolution,
then they could bring this issue to the local worker's council or popular
assembly and most likely they will dissolve it.***

"Most likely??

Why would they need approval of the local worker's council or popular assembly? Why would they need that?


A proposal I made a couple of years ago suggested that there should be collectives established specifically for the purpose of raising kids -- you would join one of these collectives because you really liked kids.

I think that would be a far superior arrangement to what we have now; that is, people trying to raise kids who have no aptitude and little liking for the task.

We'd begin these collectives with unwanted kids and expand them with kids who were, for one reason or another, unhappy with their existing families and wanted to live elsewhere.

Eventually, this might become the "prevailing model" of child-raising...with only a few parents insisting on raising their own kids.




That is, in my opinion, brilliant. It sounds very good.



Eventually, marriage should be abolished, but not outrightly in a instant, lower the stiffness of civil marriage, making it more autonomous so couples won't be tangled up in sticky beaucractic sitiuations about social security and social services ect. if they wanted to get a divorce, make marriage status more simplier, the slow path of dismanteling marriage would be the best course, the next step would be to reqluish state's control over conducting civil marriages, which would be well on the road of abolishing marriage.


That's some good points.


I am not opposed to marraige per se, but today it is, in my opinion, pompous, overblown and not healthy at all. If people want to be commited to each other and make some kind of oath to each other (in whatever form that might take), I think that is good, and even healthy.

What I don't like however, is today when, even though people want to marry, they can't afford it. And when they afford it, they invite hundreds of people to look at something so extremely intimate.

Also, today, a lot of people do it beacuse of economic reasons, which I see as totall wrong. This however, won't be a problem in a communist society. :D


Marriage should be something between two people. Not something other people should partake in. Marriage shouldn't be about societal pressure, but about love.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 12:47 PM
A proposal I made a couple of years ago suggested that there should be collectives established specifically for the purpose of raising kids -- you would join one of these collectives because you really liked kids.

I think that would be a far superior arrangement to what we have now; that is, people trying to raise kids who have no aptitude and little liking for the task.

We'd begin these collectives with unwanted kids and expand them with kids who were, for one reason or another, unhappy with their existing families and wanted to live elsewhere.

Eventually, this might become the "prevailing model" of child-raising...with only a few parents insisting on raising their
…sounds good. I have heard of tribal societies where children have about as much association with their parents as with the rest of their society; I think this is a great system.

This way children get the most support, exposure to society, wisdom and opportunities available.

This would be good to start after a communist revolution (probably after the counter-revolutionaries are reasonably suppressed).

[Karl Marx's Camel]

This would be good to start after a communist revolution (probably after the counter-revolutionaries are reasonably suppressed).


Aha, and how are you going to do that, exactly?

Do you think the parents will just "give away" their kids?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by NotWeirdOnlyGifted+--> (NotWeirdOnlyGifted)Do you think the parents will just "give away" their kids?[/b]

Kids are not the property of their parents in communist society.


redstar2000
We'd begin these collectives with unwanted kids and expand them with kids who were, for one reason or another, unhappy with their existing families and wanted to live elsewhere.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[RevolverNo9]

Ah so to clarify, what you are suggesting is an open alternative to their current domestic set-up for all children, rather than some Platonic vision.


Eventually, this might become the "prevailing model" of child-raising...with only a few parents insisting on raising their own kids.

I may have got the wrong end of the stick here but it seems like you have shifted the control here from the children to the parents, which you previously so indicted.

In the case, I hazard to suggest that it would be more than a few parents who 'insist' on carrying on raising their own children simply because there are biological and emotional forces above that of statist determinism. I realise I'm probably in for a kicking now...

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by RevolverNo9
In the case, I hazard to suggest that it would be more than a few parents who 'insist' on carrying on raising their own children simply because there are biological and emotional forces above that of statist determinism. I realise I'm probably in for a kicking now...

Well, you deserve to get "kicked"...for failing to read carefully.

There is no "statist determinism" in a communist society because there is no state.

As to "biological and emotional forces", I'm afraid you're a little too mystical for me here. Child-raising customs are among the most variable of all social behaviors...and it's by no means "impossible" that most biological parents would prefer to see a collective raise their children rather than be bothered with the task themselves.

It may well come to be seen as "common sense".

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Jan 9 2005, 03:15 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Jan 9 2005, 03:15 AM)
RevolverNo9
In the case, I hazard to suggest that it would be more than a few parents who 'insist' on carrying on raising their own children simply because there are biological and emotional forces above that of statist determinism. I realise I'm probably in for a kicking now...

As to "biological and emotional forces", I'm afraid you're a little too mystical for me here. Child-raising customs are among the most variable of all social behaviors...and it's by no means "impossible" that most biological parents would prefer to see a collective raise their children rather than be bothered with the task themselves.

It may well come to be seen as "common sense". [/b]
Not to mention that since there would be no more overworked and under funded parents, they will be able to spend as much time as they like with their children.

So if people feel some sort of obligation to their children (as I should hope they do), they will know they are taken care of no matter what.

It is "common sense" now to have specialized workers for children, if we had a more organized an efficient society (likely classless), I don't see why everyone couldn't have their children cared for and not just the rich of prior eras. The only difference is that people might actually care deeply about children and not just the superficial qualities promoted by class structure.

Also, it would be nice if people would stop suggesting (without any reasoning) we have some sort of secret agenda...oh no, professionals taking care of the children of society, its a totalitarian government!

[RevolverNo9]

QUOTE (RevolverNo9)
In the case, I hazard to suggest that it would be more than a few parents who 'insist' on carrying on raising their own children simply because there are biological and emotional forces above that of statist determinism. I realise I'm probably in for a kicking now...


Well, you deserve to get "kicked"...for failing to read carefully.

There is no "statist determinism" in a communist society because there is no state.


Nono you totally misunderstand me. Many argue that the current parental mode is purely down to statist determinism and therefore that such passions and forces will die away in favour for common sense once there is no state.

I am suggesting that there is simple biology and fundamental human emotion in this instance that would mean that more than a few parents would desire to raise their own children.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 01:21 PM
I am suggesting that there is simple biology and fundamental human emotion in this instance that would mean that more than a few parents would desire to raise their own children.
They wouldn't have to "raise" thier kids to have input into thier lives. They could see them as they please.

[Son of the Revolution]

Sounds like a good idea. It would have to be closely watched though as it would provide the perfect opportunity for paedophiles and child molesters but other than that it would be a good idea if parents went along with it... any parents here who can provide an opinion?

[apathy maybe]

I have said it before, there is no reason for marriage right now!.


Originally posted by apathy maybe
In Australia at least (I can't speak for other countries), de facto relationships are recognised as equal for financial matters to "real" marriages. There are no other (that I can think of), advantages to be married.

As to commitment, you can commit just as easily to someone by a private ceremony (just the two of you) as you can by a big wedding. Only trouble is, if (for whatever reason) you want to separate, it is a lot harder (divorce). I know of couples that have stayed together for years (and haven't separated yet). But they didn't marry.

Forever should not be forced on someone. Forcing someone to stay with someone they don't love is not good for all the parties involved (including children). This is why divorce was made legal.

[DaCuBaN]

Long time no post...


A proposal I made a couple of years ago suggested that there should be collectives established specifically for the purpose of raising kids -- you would join one of these collectives because you really liked kids.

Couldn't be more in favour of this idea if it had been my own. I don't know how many of you analysed quite how many waking hours you spend/spent with your parents, but if you work it out you'll find the majority of your time is spent in an Educational Institution.

In effect, we have this already. With this as a given, think of all the "good" teachers you knew... and ask yourself why they were good. Most often, they (in your later years) succesfully engaged your enthusiasm and had the knowledge and intellect to put the subject matter across to you.

However, when you're 5-9 years old the "ballpark" was rather different; those "great" teachers were the ones who joined the profession because they love kids. They may not make great educators, but they certainly make superb mentors. I'd go as far as to say that many of you wouldn't be half the people you are today was it not for their guidance.

As for marriage, I've made my opinion on this matter abundantly clear in the past: It's a giant waste of space, and simply panders to the insecurities of the relevant parties. In short, because an individual lacks self confidence, they seek the reassurance in a legal contract. It is, quite frankly, utter horseshit!

[apathy maybe]

It has been said that you can't abolish marriage. Marriage is a natural thing. This maybe so. What I want to abolish is the legal insitution.

Why is just a couple of people more natural then 6 people?