Soviet Union or the Russian Federation?

[Stronk Serb]

In Ramblings of the Wise, some people were saying that the USSR was better then the today's Russian Federation (2008-2014). So, where would you rather live? Today Russian Federation or post or pre-Stalin USSR? You have three choices. You can pick two, which is it going to be? Also, state what you picked and let's have a little debate about your choices. I took Pre and Post-Stalin USSR.

[Gamma Male]

I'm a gay libertarian, so.......none of the above.

[Harry Smith]

I went for the Russian Federation-assuming it's like the 1990's I could make millions selling people, nukes and guns after the collapse. It really is one of the economic basket cases-Russia was a mess in the 90's when capitalism suddenly set in.

I'd also go with pre-Stalin Russia-I imagine being part of a force that powerful must of been amazing. The soviets managed to bring down two governments in about 8 months through the sheer power of workers alone. It completely changed the 20th Century, I'd even say it was one of the most crucial points in History. The only problem is that Lenin had some good ideas but he was unable to actually put them through due to the civil war, war communism didn't look too fun either

[Stronk Serb]

I'm a gay libertarian, so.......none of the above.

In the Soviet Union, the state wouldn't give a damn if you were gay. You would have the same rights as a straight guy, while in the Russian Federation you are deprived of all rights.

I went for the Russian Federation-assuming it's like the 1990's I could make millions selling people, nukes and guns after the collapse. It really is one of the economic basket cases-Russia was a mess in the 90's when capitalism suddenly set in.

I'd also go with pre-Stalin Russia-I imagine being part of a force that powerful must of been amazing. The soviets managed to bring down two governments in about 8 months through the sheer power of workers alone. It completely changed the 20th Century, I'd even say it was one of the most crucial points in History. The only problem is that Lenin had some good ideas but he was unable to actually put them through due to the civil war, war communism didn't look too fun either

I meant today Russia ie. Russia from 2008-2013 and the beginning of 2014. Gonna have to edit it. I agree on the pre-Stalin statement. It would've felt amazing to be there, breaking the old system. Unfortunately it did not work out in the long run. Because of the White Army and the countries which intervened, the Soviet Union had to be run with an iron grip in order to ensure it's survival. After de-Stalinisation, the life in the USSR got a bit better until the 70's and the 80's when their economy was falling apart.

[Sph2015]

I'm sorry, but all three are frankly terrible. No question.

Are we going to forget the millions of people essentially forced into government sanctioned slavery? Can we acknowledge that the "great nation" was built by a broken people forced to into unimaginably cruel working conditions? The Soviet Union sucked. I'm not even bothering to go into it more, because there is quite frankly no argument whatsoever.

Also, Wabbajack is completely right. If you were gay, you were arrested. It was seen as a mental disease, and overall a weakness that the rest of the world couldn't have any knowledge of. There's no way in hell a gay couple could've lived happily ever after in the Soviet Union.

As far as Russia today? You've got to be kidding me. Corruption and human rights violations sounds like a party to me. Not at all. This is a "would you rather" from hell.

Try to sell me on communism all you want. I'm always open to hear arguments. How ever, capitalism has treated me pretty damn well. Again, you can try to defend an idea, but don't you dare try to paint a pretty picture of an awful, awful country.

It should be a crime to ignore the atrocities that have happened in any place. It really should. I can't even begin to consider looking at the Soviet Union without thinking of all those lives destroyed in the name of a government and country that failed miserably.

[Gamma Male]

Thank you! I was going to say somthing like this but couldn't really figure out how to go about it.
I would like to add, however, that the American government has done some pretty awful things in the last century as well. People criticise the SU for spreading political propaganda and imprisoning people with opposing views, but didn't the US government do basically the same thing? Also, I seriously doubt life was good for gay americans in the 20's-50's. And what about the thousands of Japanese American who were wrongfully imprisoned during WW 2?
Yeah, life was great in America....as long as you were a straight white christian male.


My point is, all major world governments suck.

[Harry Smith]

I'm sorry, but all three are frankly terrible. No question.

Are we going to forget the millions of people essentially forced into government sanctioned slavery? Can we acknowledge that the "great nation" was built by a broken people forced to into unimaginably cruel working conditions? The Soviet Union sucked. I'm not even bothering to go into it more, because there is quite frankly no argument whatsoever.

Also, Wabbajack is completely right. If you were gay, you were arrested. It was seen as a mental disease, and overall a weakness that the rest of the world couldn't have any knowledge of. There's no way in hell a gay couple could've lived happily ever after in the Soviet Union.

As far as Russia today? You've got to be kidding me. Corruption and human rights violations sounds like a party to me. Not at all. This is a "would you rather" from hell.

Try to sell me on communism all you want. I'm always open to hear arguments. How ever, capitalism has treated me pretty damn well. Again, you can try to defend an idea, but don't you dare try to paint a pretty picture of an awful, awful country.

It should be a crime to ignore the atrocities that have happened in any place. It really should. I can't even begin to consider looking at the Soviet Union without thinking of all those lives destroyed in the name of a government and country that failed miserably.

You should also look at all the people the US have killed-in Vietnam, in the War on Terror and in Japan. I just hope you don't forget those atrocities.

In regards to gay couples I'd argue that it was only marginally better in the US and UK compared to the Soviet Union. The Russians made all homosexual activity legal in 1993 where as states like Texas only legalized in 2005. The soviets had pretty liberal ideas towards homosexuals

[Sph2015]

You should also look at all the people the US have killed-in Vietnam, in the War on Terror and in Japan. I just hope you don't forget those atrocities.

I certainly wouldn't like to forget any of those. What about slavery and how we treated Native Americans? I can assure you that those things are not forgotten. We are taught them in school, and the American people condemn then.

Although the war on terror and what happened in Japan are different. That's another debate though.

The point is, the evils of the Soviet Union seem to be overlooked here.

[Harry Smith]

I certainly wouldn't like to forget any of those. What about slavery and how we treated Native Americans? I can assure you that those things are not forgotten. We are taught them in school, and the American people condemn then.

Although the war on terror and what happened in Japan are different. That's another debate though.

The point is, the evils of the Soviet Union seem to be overlooked here.

The war on terror is simply a sign of George Bush being stupid.

http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/we-spent-10-years-looking-for-bin-laden-meme.jpg

You really can't justify a 13 year war that has cost billions of dollars, illegally imprisoned innocent Muslims without trial and propped up fascist regimes such as Saudi Arabia.

No-one is overlooking the evils of the Soviet Union-I'd just argue that post Stalin the soviet union was on level pegging with the US in regards to political and social conditions-it's just the soviets didn't hide behind a false ideology

[Stronk Serb]

I certainly wouldn't like to forget any of those. What about slavery and how we treated Native Americans? I can assure you that those things are not forgotten. We are taught them in school, and the American people condemn then.

Although the war on terror and what happened in Japan are different. That's another debate though.

The point is, the evils of the Soviet Union seem to be overlooked here.

Post-Stalin and pre-Stalin USSR were nothing compared to what it was under Stalin. It is choosing the lesser evil. I just want to see what people would choose. Pre-Stalin was fighting against the White Army and their supporters, while post-Stalin was combating NATO via proxy wars and having an economic collapse due to senile leaders.

The war on terror is simply a sign of George Bush being stupid.

image (http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/we-spent-10-years-looking-for-bin-laden-meme.jpg )

You really can't justify a 13 year war that has cost billions of dollars, illegally imprisoned innocent Muslims without trial and propped up fascist regimes such as Saudi Arabia.

No-one is overlooking the evils of the Soviet Union-I'd just argue that post Stalin the soviet union was on level pegging with the US in regards to political and social conditions-it's just the soviets didn't hide behind a false ideology

This. The reason why I didn't include Stalin's Soviet Union is because it was as bad to the regular worker or soldier as Nazi Germany was bad towards the Slavic countries which casualties number more then a third of the entire war.

[Cygnus]

I'd say the Russian Federation, it has developed way more than it did with the USSR and has even more potential.

[Vlerchan]

Post-Stalin USSR & Russian Federation

In Post-Stalin USSR - specifically talking the 1980s here - I would have been guaranteed: free healthcare, free education up to third-level, guaranteed employment thereafter, subsidized foreign holidays, amongst other things, and still held the same life expectancy that they're only reaching in the Russian Federation these last few years (65-ish.) It would have come at the cost of my freedom of speech but it's not like I'd have that in the Russian Federation either. I only chose the Russian Federation as my second choice because regardless of what regime you're living under, standards of living are always going to be higher in the one occurring eighty years later.

Can we acknowledge that the "great nation" was built by a broken people forced to into unimaginably cruel working conditions?
If at the same time we acknowledge that every other major state today was built the same way: by broken people forced into unimaginably cruel working conditions - because I don't count 'choosing' to work in unimaginably cruel working conditions over starving as the whole 'voluntary' process that others like to make it out to be; i.e., you're forced by your necessity to eat. Though, technically the Soviet people weren't forced to work either: they were given a choice between working and starving same as those in France, Britain, Germany, etc. They were simply restricted to one employer as opposed to a handful.

Also, Wabbajack is completely right. If you were gay, you were arrested. It was seen as a mental disease, and overall a weakness that the rest of the world couldn't have any knowledge of. There's no way in hell a gay couple could've lived happily ever after in the Soviet Union.
If the Soviet Union's history only extended from 1928 - 1990 then you'd be correct. It doesn't, though.

Lenin's Soviet Union - with the guidance of (social-feminist) Alexandra Kollontai - was the first state the legalize both homosexuality and homosexual marriage - as well abortion, though that's another story. Stalin re-illegalized all this on coming to power, though my point still stands: it's wrong to say there's no way in hell a gay couple could have lived happily, because pre-Stalin gay couples did live happily.

[Twilly F. Sniper]

Assuming that I'm fairly libertarian, I absolutely despise Russia right now. Well, not despise. A better word would be dislike.
But the Russian Federation is overally better than the Soviet Union. But that's Stalin's fault. Lenin was perfect, except one little tiny detail. He was communist. I don't disrespect communism like most of America, it's just a little short-sighted. It turns into greed, corruption, on the part of the "workers".

But today, Russia has one big issue that makes me not like it. Gay massacre. It's as bad as the Strasbourg Holocaust.

[Sir Suomi]

I picked the modern day Russia, simply because it's a lesser of three evils. Honestly, Russia, in my personal opinion, is honestly one of the worst "modern" country out there.

[Zenos]

[QUOTE=Comrade Mike;2695212]In the Soviet Union, the state wouldn't give a damn if you were gay. You would have the same rights as a straight guy, while in the Russian Federation you are deprived of all rights.
[QUOTE]

The Communist Manifesto does not address the issue of sexual orientation or gender identity. Later Communist leaders and intellectuals took many different positions on LGBT-rights issues.
The Communist Party abolished all Czarist laws and its subsequent criminal code in the 1920s, did not criminalize non-commercial same-sex sexuality between consenting adults in private. It also provided for no-fault divorce and legalized abortion. However, homosexuality remained a criminal offense in certain "uncivilized" Soviet Union states in the 1920s as part of an effort against "uncivilized" cultural practices.

In 1933, Joseph Stalin added Article 121 to the entire Soviet Union criminal code, which made male homosexuality a crime punishable by up to five years in prison with hard labor. The precise reason for Article 121 is in some dispute among historians. The few official government statements made about the law tended to confuse homosexuality with pedophilia and was tied up with a belief that homosexuality was only practiced among fascists or the aristocracy.

The law remained intact until after the dissolution of the Soviet Union; it was repealed in 1993

[Stronk Serb]

[QUOTE=Comrade Mike;2695212]In the Soviet Union, the state wouldn't give a damn if you were gay. You would have the same rights as a straight guy, while in the Russian Federation you are deprived of all rights.
[QUOTE]

The Communist Manifesto does not address the issue of sexual orientation or gender identity. Later Communist leaders and intellectuals took many different positions on LGBT-rights issues.
The Communist Party abolished all Czarist laws and its subsequent criminal code in the 1920s, did not criminalize non-commercial same-sex sexuality between consenting adults in private. It also provided for no-fault divorce and legalized abortion. However, homosexuality remained a criminal offense in certain "uncivilized" Soviet Union states in the 1920s as part of an effort against "uncivilized" cultural practices.

In 1933, Joseph Stalin added Article 121 to the entire Soviet Union criminal code, which made male homosexuality a crime punishable by up to five years in prison with hard labor. The precise reason for Article 121 is in some dispute among historians. The few official government statements made about the law tended to confuse homosexuality with pedophilia and was tied up with a belief that homosexuality was only practiced among fascists or the aristocracy.

The law remained intact until after the dissolution of the Soviet Union; it was repealed in 1993

One thing, the Soviet Union under Stalin was not included. But still, post-Stalin USSR was (in my opinion) better then the Russian Federation. Soviet citizens had access to:

-Universal healthcare
-Third level education
-Could get a job whenever they wanted to when they came of working age

Now about the law, a worse version was recently instated, depraving the gay population of basic human rights.

[Ethe14]

I picked the modern day Russia, simply because it's a lesser of three evils. Honestly, Russia, in my personal opinion, is honestly one of the worst "modern" country out there.

I picked post Stalin, there really isn't a good choice out there. They're all bad it's just that I think post Stalin is the lesser evil. Communism is a good idea in theory but it can never be executed properly. I'm not even sure if Russia should be considered a modern or developed country. Sure they have nukes but so does North Korea.

[Zenos]

[QUOTE=Zenos;2695843][QUOTE=Comrade Mike;2695212]In the Soviet Union, the state wouldn't give a damn if you were gay. You would have the same rights as a straight guy, while in the Russian Federation you are deprived of all rights.


One thing, the Soviet Union under Stalin was not included. But still, post-Stalin USSR was (in my opinion) better then the Russian Federation. Soviet citizens had access to:

-Universal healthcare
-Third level education
-Could get a job whenever they wanted to when they came of working age

Now about the law, a worse version was recently instated, depraving the gay population of basic human rights.

the Job one would be the only good thing about the USSR,as to the law while I don't approve of it,I think the only way true and lasting change is going to happen is from within the Russian Federation itself,this silly willy nilly bull poop of boycotting the Russian federation to cause change form without just causes them to give the illusion of change until things settle down,then it's business as usual.

[Stronk Serb]

I picked post Stalin, there really isn't a good choice out there. They're all bad it's just that I think post Stalin is the lesser evil. Communism is a good idea in theory but it can never be executed properly. I'm not even sure if Russia should be considered a modern or developed country. Sure they have nukes but so does North Korea.

Let's just say they were relatively advanced until the homophobia hit their heads.

[QUOTE=Comrade Mike;2695867][QUOTE=Zenos;2695843]

the Job one would be the only good thing about the USSR,as to the law while I don't approve of it,I think the only way true and lasting change is going to happen is from within the Russian Federation itself,this silly willy nilly bull poop of boycotting the Russian federation to cause change form without just causes them to give the illusion of change until things settle down,then it's business as usual.

We will never know if we don't do it.

[Ethe14]

Let's just say they were relatively advanced until the homophobia hit their heads.



[QUOTE=Zenos;2695911][QUOTE=Comrade Mike;2695867]

We will never know if we don't do it.

Yeah I'll give them credit for getting the U.S off their lazy ass and start a space race, that was technologically beneficial to both sides.

[Lovelife090994]

Assuming that I'm fairly libertarian, I absolutely despise Russia right now. Well, not despise. A better word would be dislike.
But the Russian Federation is overally better than the Soviet Union. But that's Stalin's fault. Lenin was perfect, except one little tiny detail. He was communist. I don't disrespect communism like most of America, it's just a little short-sighted. It turns into greed, corruption, on the part of the "workers".

But today, Russia has one big issue that makes me not like it. Gay massacre. It's as bad as the Strasbourg Holocaust.

If gays were being killed in Russia as well in addition to other countries, it'd bring a war and possibly a world war. I still doubt Russia is the devil people say it is. Now because of this political mess many Russians are getting mistreated which is something inexuseable. You can't help being gay and you can't help what country you are from and or born in either.

[Vlerchan]

The Communist Manifesto does not address the issue of sexual orientation or gender identity.

The Communist Manifesto as written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels is a mere statement of belief at best and a propaganda piece at worst; it should not be taken as the be-all-and-end-all of communist theory, thought or otherwise - but rather an introduction, and not a particularly great one at that. I can assure you that Engels did write on ethics and morality however - EDIT: see below. To sum though: Engels basically believed that imposed moral values were unneeded; and only existed to suit the Bourgeoisie, it should be up to society to decide on its morals without coercion, and laws regarding morals should be abolished on the formation of a socialist workers state - or something to that effect; EDIT: see below.

Though you're right in one thing: if you want an extensive Marxist analysis of ethics and morality you'd be a lot better off looking elsewhere than Marx & Engels.

However, homosexuality remained a criminal offense in certain "uncivilized" Soviet Union states in the 1920s as part of an effort against "uncivilized" cultural practices.
Homosexuality was 're-criminalized' in the 'uncivilized' territories of the Soviet Union (Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, etc.) which were not actually, technically a part of the Soviet Union but rather semi-autonomous territories under its dominion - the same as Gibraltar is to Great Britain. So, homosexuality was legal in the Soviet Union but not all its territories, which aren't the Soviet Union. Get me? I feel like I've explained that awfully.

Engels on Sexual Morality 1 - There really should be hide tags on this board:

Up to the lower stage of barbarism, permanent wealth had consisted almost solely of house, clothing, crude ornaments and the tools for obtaining and preparing food – boat, weapons, and domestic utensils of the simplest kind. Food had to be won afresh day by day. Now, with their herds of horses, camels, asses, cattle, sheep, goats, and pigs, the advancing pastoral peoples...

But to whom did this new wealth belong? Originally to the gens [family], without a doubt. Private property in herds must have already started at an early period, however. It is difficult to say whether the author of the so-called first book of Moses regarded the patriarch Abraham as the owner of his herds in his own right as head of a family community or by right of his position as actual hereditary head of a gens. What is certain is that we must not think of him as a property owner in the modern sense of the word. And it is also certain that at the threshold of authentic history we already find the herds everywhere separately owned by heads of families, as are the artistic products of barbarism – metal implements, luxury articles and, finally, the human cattle – the slaves.

For now slavery had also been invented. To the barbarian of the lower stage, a slave was valueless. Hence the treatment of defeated enemies by the American Indians was quite different from that at a higher stage. The men were killed or adopted as brothers into the tribe of the victors; the women were taken as wives or otherwise adopted with their surviving children. At this stage human labor-power still does not produce any considerable surplus over and above its maintenance costs. That was no longer the case after the introduction of cattle-breeding, metalworking, weaving and, lastly, agriculture. just as the wives whom it had formerly been so easy to obtain had now acquired an exchange value and were bought, so also with the forces of labor, particularly since the herds had definitely become family possessions. The family did not multiply so rapidly as the cattle. More people were needed to look after them; for this purpose use could be made of the enemies captured in war, who could also be bred just as easily as the cattle themselves.

Once it had passed into the private possession of families and there rapidly begun to augment, this wealth dealt a severe blow to the society founded on pairing marriage and the matriarchal gens. Pairing marriage had brought a new element into the family. By the side of the natural mother of the child it placed its natural and attested father, with a better warrant of paternity, probably, than that of many a “father” today. According to the division of labor within the family at that time, it was the man’s part to obtain food and the instruments of labor necessary for the purpose. He therefore also owned the instruments of labor, and in the event of husband and wife separating, he took them with him, just as she retained her household goods. Therefore, according to the social custom of the time, the man was also the owner of the new source of subsistence, the cattle, and later of the new instruments of labor, the slaves. But according to the custom of the same society, his children could not inherit from him. For as regards inheritance, the position was as follows:

At first, according to mother-right – so long, therefore, as descent was reckoned only in the female line – and according to the original custom of inheritance within the gens, the gentile relatives inherited from a deceased fellow member of their gens. His property had to remain within the gens. His effects being insignificant, they probably always passed in practice to his nearest gentile relations – that is, to his blood relations on the mother's side. The children of the dead man, however, did not belong to his gens, but to that of their mother; it was from her that they inherited, at first conjointly with her other blood relations, later perhaps with rights of priority; they could not inherit from their father, because they did not belong to his gens, within which his property had to remain. When the owner of the herds died, therefore, his herds would go first to his brothers and sisters and to his sister’s children, or to the issue of his mother’s sisters. But his own children were disinherited.

Thus, on the one hand, in proportion as wealth increased, it made the man’s position in the family more important than the woman’s, and on the other hand created an impulse to exploit this strengthened position in order to overthrow, in favor of his children, the traditional order of inheritance. This, however, was impossible so long as descent was reckoned according to mother-right. Mother-right, therefore, had to be overthrown, and overthrown it was. This was by no means so difficult as it looks to us today. For this revolution – one of the most decisive ever experienced by humanity – could take place without disturbing a single one of the living members of a gens. All could remain as they were. A simple decree sufficed that in the future the offspring of the male members should remain within the gens, but that of the female should be excluded by being transferred to the gens of their father. The reckoning of descent in the female line and the matriarchal law of inheritance were thereby overthrown, and the male line of descent and the paternal law of inheritance were substituted for them. As to how and when this revolution took place among civilized peoples, we have no knowledge. It falls entirely within prehistoric times. But that it did take place is more than sufficiently proved by the abundant traces of mother-right which have been collected, particularly by Bachofen. How easily it is accomplished can be seen in a whole series of American Indian tribes, where it has only recently taken place and is still taking place under the influence, partly of increasing wealth and a changed mode of life (transference from forest to prairie), and partly of the moral pressure of civilization and missionaries.

...Monogamy arose from the concentration of considerable wealth in the hands of a single individuals man-and from the need to bequeath this wealth to the children of that man and of no other. For this purpose, the monogamy of the woman was required, not that of the man, so this monogamy of the woman did not in any way interfere with open or concealed polygamy on the part of the man. But by transforming by far the greater portion, at any rate, of permanent, heritable wealth – the means of production – into social property, the coming social revolution will reduce to a minimum all this anxiety about bequeathing and inheriting. Having arisen from economic causes, will monogamy then disappear when these causes disappear?

One might answer, not without reason: far from disappearing, it will, on the contrary, be realized completely. For with the transformation of the means of production into social property there will disappear also wage-labor, the proletariat, and therefore the necessity for a certain – statistically calculable – number of women to surrender themselves for money. Prostitution disappears; monogamy, instead of collapsing, at last becomes a reality – also for men.

In any case, therefore, the position of men will be very much altered. But the position of women, of all women, also undergoes significant change. With the transfer of the means of production into common ownership, the single family ceases to be the economic unit of society. Private housekeeping is transformed into a social industry. The care and education of the children becomes a public affair; society looks after all children alike, whether they are legitimate or not. This removes all the anxiety about the “consequences,” which today is the most essential social – moral as well as economic – factor that prevents a girl from giving herself completely to the man she loves. Will not that suffice to bring about the gradual growth of unconstrained sexual intercourse and with it a more tolerant public opinion in regard to a maiden’s honor and a woman’s shame? And, finally, have we not seen that in the modern world monogamy and prostitution are indeed contradictions, but inseparable contradictions, poles of the same state of society? Can prostitution disappear without dragging monogamy with it into the abyss?

Here a new element comes into play, an element which, at the time when monogamy was developing, existed at most in germ: individual sex-love.

...Throughout the whole of antiquity, marriages were arranged by the parents, and the partners calmly accepted their choice. What little love there was between husband and wife in antiquity is not so much subjective inclination as objective duty, not the cause of the marriage, but its corollary. Love relationships in the modern sense only occur in antiquity outside official society....Except among slaves, we find love affairs only as products of the disintegration of the old world and carried on with women who also stand outside official society, with hetairai – that is, with foreigners or freed slaves: in Athens from the eve of its decline, in Rome under the Caesars. If there were any real love affairs between free men and free women, these occurred only in the course of adultery. And to the classical love poet of antiquity, old Anacreon, sexual love in our sense mattered so little that it did not even matter to him which sex his beloved was.

Our sexual love differs essentially from the simple sexual desire, the Eros, of the ancients. In the first place, it assumes that the person loved returns the love; to this extent the woman is on an equal footing with the man, whereas in the Eros of antiquity she was often not even asked. Secondly, our sexual love has a degree of intensity and duration which makes both lovers feel that non-possession and separation are a great, if not the greatest, calamity; to possess one another, they risk high stakes, even life itself. In the ancient world this happened only, if at all, in adultery. And, finally, there arises a new moral standard in the judgment of a sexual relationship. We do not only ask, was it within or outside marriage? But also, did it spring from love and reciprocated love or not? Of course, this new standard has fared no better in feudal or bourgeois practice than all the other standards of morality – it is ignored. But neither does it fare any worse. It is recognized just as much as they are – in theory, on paper. And for the present it cannot ask anything more.

At the point where antiquity broke off its advance to sexual love, the Middle Ages took it up again: in adultery...As a rule, the young prince’s bride is selected by his parents, if they are still living, or, if not, by the prince himself, with the advice of the great feudal lords, who have a weighty word to say in all these cases. Nor can it be otherwise. For the knight or baron, as for the prince of the land himself, marriage is a political act, an opportunity to increase power by new alliances; the interest of the house must be decisive, not the wishes of an individual. What chance then is there for love to have the final word in the making of a marriage?

...Such was the state of things encountered by capitalist production when it began to prepare itself, after the epoch of geographical discoveries, to win world power by world trade and manufacture. One would suppose that this manner of marriage exactly suited it, and so it did. And yet – there are no limits to the irony of history – capitalist production itself was to make the decisive breach in it. By changing all things into commodities, it dissolved all inherited and traditional relationships, and, in place of time-honored custom and historic right, it set up purchase and sale, “free” contract...But a contract requires people who can dispose freely of their persons, actions, and possessions, and meet each other on the footing of equal rights. To create these “free” and “equal” people was one of the main tasks of capitalist production. Even though at the start it was carried out only half-consciously, and under a religious disguise at that, from the time of the Lutheran and Calvinist Reformation the principle was established that man is only fully responsible for his actions when he acts with complete freedom of will, and that it is a moral duty to resist all coercion to an immoral act. But how did this fit in with the hitherto existing practice in the arrangement of marriages? Marriage, according to the bourgeois conception, was a contract, a legal transaction, and the most important one of all, because it disposed of two human beings, body and mind, for life. Formally, it is true, the contract at that time was entered into voluntarily: without the assent of the persons concerned, nothing could be done. But everyone knew only too well how this assent was obtained and who were the real contracting parties in the marriage. But if real freedom of decision was required for all other contracts, then why not for this? Had not the two young people to be coupled also the right to dispose freely of themselves, of their bodies and organs? Had not chivalry brought sex-love into fashion, and was not its proper bourgeois form, in contrast to chivalry’s adulterous love, the love of husband and wife? And if it was the duty of married people to love each other, was it not equally the duty of lovers to marry each other and nobody else? Did not this right of the lovers stand higher than the right of parents, relations, and other traditional marriage-brokers and matchmakers? If the right of free, personal discrimination broke boldly into the Church and religion, how should it halt before the intolerable claim of the older generation to dispose of the body, soul, property, happiness, and unhappiness of the younger generation?