where does the concept of marriage being a left vs right argument even come from?
many self-proclaimed communists online like to attack marriage as institution, but I'm not convinced on how or why it is related to communism.
It seems to me like marriage is a good thing, where societies with fatherless families tend to raise more fucked up kids.
Even if you are pro-marriage, Holla Forums, why do modern Marxists like to protest it?
Most, shall we say, controversial opinions that the so-called Left holds come from infiltrators undermining the actual Left. They got word that some of us don't like the institution of the Nuclear Family because it isolates people down into small clusters, so they thought we must surely hate monogamy and marriage as well despite the fact that monogamy and marriage are not innovations from the Nuclear Family.
you just know that when it says "Ph.D" the book is full of shit
Read Origins of the Family.
This, basically.
Marriage was destroyed by capitalism.
Also, read Origin of the Family
marxists.org
They probably bring it up because marriage in the legal sense discriminates against people not married. Married people have rights others do not such as having rights over decision making for a partner if in a coma, or visiting rights in prisons.
that's not what we mean at all, reddit
They're religious and state institutions.
Why be anything but against them?
All I see from your post is
Is not important, and
Is not important.
Is it reddit to be sick, or in prison?
Right-wingers are in love with the nuclear family concept so lefties have to be against it simply because of that.
I'm not from reddit. I was just pointing things out.
It's stupid to think marriage only exists in religion and use that as an argument. At it's most basic it's just a symbolic gesture of a promise of sorts.
Luckily I didn't do that. You fuck.
I said it's a state and religious institution. Which it is. It, as neither of those things, is fine, stupid but fine.
Because marriage in its current incarnation is a bourgeois institution meant to ensure the transfer of wealth rather than ensure a healthy consummation to a relationship.
polcucks go on and on about the importance of marriage blah blah single mothers blah blah duhjinerasy, but marriage isn't some arcane ritual that literally binds people together. They miss the underlying fact that the relationships are broken to begin with by capitalism's possessive objectification of the significant other and that this ritualistic contract negotiation is symptomatic of that. Then they wonder why there are these stories of women fucking over their spouses for material gain. They blame it on some kind of inherent female quality rather than the logical conclusion of a social system of material transfer.
Well I didn't say that part. I just included it after.
The state part though. Religious AND state institutions.
how? kids raised by both a male and female grow up to be better people on average, it's just a fact.
Marriage has the power to alienate a couple from society. that's why I like it. being in love means not giving two shits about anyone else but your couple
If people still want to get married after capitalism ends why stop them. There's nothing wrong with two people getting together and holding a ceremony.
Worth noting that in Russia there was a vocal minority of communists who thought marriage was bourgeois and wanted to make it illegal, but they were never popular even within the communist party.
It's not male and female households, It's two parent households in general.
The right being retarded. Marriage these days is a mix of tradition/romance and ensurance property is contained within a family. Under communism the latter part will vanish while the former will stay because it appears humans prefer monoamorous relationships, whether this is due to biology or culture is irrelevant to the short term existence of marriage under socialism.
...
Many cultures practice polygamy. Part of British imperialism was the destruction of polygamous traditions in favor of monogamy. Read about things like the hut tax in Kenya.
This is something that actually gets my blood boiling about the (Western) Right. They judge Communism by both the USSR, liberal progressivism and non-authoritarian strands of Marxism which are antithetical to one another.
Apparently Communism is an authoritarian regime because of the USSR, Communism is also anything that happened in the USSR, isn't it? Gulags, executions, poor living conditions, lack of freedom of speech. But(!) magically in the same time Communism (or "Cultural Marxism") is the promotion of non-tranditional lifestyles; like homosexuality - although it was punished in the USSR and most ML states; like polyamory and the breaking of the family - although a strong family was the policy of the USSR and other ML states; like the destruction of gender roles - although men and women were traditional in the USSR and other ML states, and with rather a liberation of women than the destruction of the woman identity. Put to put simply, it's double standards: Communism is both the USSR, but also everything opposite to it.
When it's killing, Communism is the USSR, when it's progressivism, Communism is Cultural Marxism.
This is pretty accurate, but on the other hand monogamy shouldn't be enforced. Most people will be what's called "serial monogamists" i.e. they have many partners but just one at a time. The spooks and institutions built up around relationships are absolute cancer and need to go though.
but then how do you prevent single parenthood? being raised by one adult is really bad for a growing impressionable child.
communal child rearing, there is no reason why you should let the biological parent raise the child solely because they're related.
Communal child rearing you dumb idiot
It oughtta be, am I right Holla Forums?
Huh?
The number one reason behind failed marriages is based on access to finance. If anything has destroyed marriage more than anything, it's not Socialists, LGBT, minorities or otherwise, it's been right wing economic policy that perpetuates wealth inequality.
The idea of Leftists being anti-marriage mostly comes from Marxist literature in which marriage (of Marx's time) was usually a contract based on wealth rather than love, a means to secure capital. It wasn't something working class people were involved in. Even today there's a good case against marriage but usually when it comes down to it the rights perception of the left's position is archaic and highly based on spooky beliefs of trad values mixed with shaky propaganda.
Historically, marriage has been an economic endeavor. Working class people use marriage to facilitate social mobility, and the bourgeoisie use it to consolidate wealth and social influence through merging of families.
The economic function of marriage was accepted reality until the end of the eighteenth century in the west, when people began seeing marriage as being about love. In reality, it is still about economics and social status. We simply tell ourselves otherwise.
Without religious superstition, private property, and class divisions, marriage will have no role in society.
Read some Goldman; she will set you straight.
marxists.org
jews arent capable of feeling love (except for precious gems) so it's not really a surprise one would write something like that