§ I. Marriage in the Socialistic State

We do not assert that socialism aims at the legal prohibition of marriage or at the compulsory dissolution of the family. Kautsky feigns great indignation at imputations of this sort made against social democracy. “It is a most palpable falsification,’ he says, “to impute to us any such intentions; only a fool can imagine that a family is created or abolished by a legislative enactment.”¹ It has become a real mania with socialist writers to wax wroth at objections which no one thinks of raising. All we maintain is that the dissolution of the family is the necessary consequence of socialist principles and demands. The proof for our assertion is not far to fetch.

¹ Das Erfurter Programm, etc., p. 146.

The destruction of the marriage bond involves the destruction of the family. Marriage is the root and foundation of the entire family. Socialism, however, by its theories of equality loosens the marriage tie, and introduces instead some amorous relation based on mere whims and passing inclinations. The truth of this statement is vouched for by the express testimony of prominent socialists. Already Marx has pointed out that modern industry, by assigning an important part in socially organized production to women, young persons, and children, and thereby removing them from the sphere of domestic life, is creating the economic basis for “a higher form of the family and of the relation of the sexes.” And he adds that it is rather silly to consider the Christian Germanic form of marriage or any other form as absolute and unchangeable.²

² Capital, vol. I. p. 455.

What are we to understand by the higher form of sexual relations? The Erfurt platform calls for the “abolition of all laws which subordinate woman to man in public and private life.” This demand implies at least the destruction of the unity of the family, which necessarily postulates one supreme head. Who is to decide the dispute, if man and wife disagree as to their dwelling-place and similar affairs? But to make us understand more fully what is meant by that higher form of marriage, it will suffice to hear the evidence of a leader, who may be said to represent the almost universal sentiment. Bebel writes of the position of woman in the socialist state as follows:

“In the choice of the object of her love she [woman] is no less free than man: she loves, and is loved, and enters into the marriage alliance with no other regard than that of preference. This alliance is a private agreement, without the intervention of any [public] functionary, just as marriage was a private concern till late in the Middle Ages.”¹ . . . Man should be free to dispose of the strongest instinct of his nature as of every other natural instinct. The gratification of the sexual instinct is not a whit less the personal affair of every individual than is the satisfaction of any other natural appetite. Therefore no one is obliged to render an account of such gratification; nor is any uncalledfor intermeddler permitted to interfere in this matter. Prudence, education, and independence will facilitate and direct the proper choice. If disagreement, disappointment, or disaffection should arise, morality [!] demands a disruption of the unnatural and, consequently, immoral alliance.”²

¹ This is a mistake. The Church never looked upon marriage as a purely private concern, beyond the limit of her jurisdiction. According to Catholic doctrine, marriage is a sacrament instituted by Christ and entrusted to the care of the Church. Therefore marriage laws and marriage impediments were promulgated. Moreover, every marriage not celebrated according to the ecclesiastical rite (in facie ecclesiæ) was declared illicit. If, nevertheless, up to the Council of Trent clandestine marriages were acknowledged as valid (that is to say, if there existed no other impediments), this was done to prevent greater evils. But also, then, the contracting parties were bound forever. What is there in common in this institution with the promiscuity of sexual intercourse advocated by Bebel, who permits the utmost freedom of tying or untying the marital bond without the least interference from any one?

² Die Frau, p. 342. Similar ideas are propounded by Engels in his Origin of the Family, by Stern and Liebknecht. Among American socialists these views on marriage have been popularized by Edward Carpenter's Love's Coming-of-Age. According to Carpenter, marriage relations are raised to a much higher plane by a continual change of partners “until a permanent mate and equal is found.” A man of ordinary common sense, however, will characterize such proceedings as rank promiscuity.

Here we have unvarnished “free-love.” What remains of the bond of marriage if the parties, following every whim and transient disaffection, are free to separate and to enter upon another alliance? However, we do not mean to confine ourselves to such explicit teaching of socialists. We shall endeavor to show that socialism of its very nature demolishes the family, which is the foundation of the social order.

In the first place the atheistic and materialistic tenets of socialism are incompatible with the unity and indissolubility of marriage. If man has no higher aim than to revel in earthly enjoyment, how can he be induced to bear the yoke of indissoluble monogamy? Is he to be tied for life to a partner whom he no longer loves, who is perhaps subject to loathsome diseases, who is guilty of adultery or other crimes? If even many defenders of the existing social order look upon divorce as excusable in many cases, how can socialists, with their striving after enjoyment, be brought to respect the sacredness of the marriage bond? An indissoluble marriage contract is incompatible with Epicurean principles.

The basis upon which the indissolubility of marriage, and consequently the stability of the family, chiefly rests is the education of the children. It is chiefly for this purpose that the lifelong union of man and wife is necessary; for such a lifelong union is generally required for the suitable education of their offspring. Therefore whoever wrests the education of their children from the hands of parents, and makes it a function of the state, thereby undermines the lowest foundation of the family. But socialism puts education and instruction altogether into the hands of the commonwealth. The Gotha platform demands: “Universal and equal education of the people by the state.’ This demand is re-stated somewhat obscurely by the Erfurt platform: “Compulsory attendance at the public schools. Instruction, use of all means of instruction, and board free of charge in all public elementary schools and in the higher institutions of learning for such pupils of both sexes as, on account of their talents, are judged fit for higher studies,” whilst the American Socialist Party platform advocates “education of all children up to the age of eighteen years, and state and municipal aid for books, clothing, and food.”

On this point we may yet insert the words of one of the great apostles of socialism.

“Every child that comes into the world, whether male or female, is a welcome addition to society; for society beholds in every child the continuation of itself and its own further development; it, therefore, perceives from the very outset the duty, according to its power, to provide for the new-born child. And, first of all, the mother who gives birth to and nurses the child is the object of the state’s concern. Comfortable lodging, pleasant surroundings, and accommodations of all kinds suited to this stage of motherhood, careful treatment of herself and of her offspring, are the first requisite. It is self-evident that the mother must be left to nurse the child, as long as this is possible and necessary... .

“When the child waxes stronger his equals await him for common amusement, under public direction. Here again all things are supplied which, according to the perfection of human knowledge and wisdom, for the time being, tend toward the development of soul and body. Then comes the kindergarten with its playrooms; and, at a later period, the child is playfully introduced into the elements of knowledge and human activity. Mental and bodily labor, gymnastic exercises, free movement on the playground and in the gymnasium, on the ice field and in the natatorium; marching, fencing, and other exercises for both sexes, shall succeed and relieve and supplement one another in due order. The introduction to the various kinds of useful labor—to manufacture, gardening, farming, and to the entire mechanism of production—follows in due succession. But the intellectual development, in the meantime, on the various fields of science, is not to be neglected. Corresponding to the high grade of social culture shall be the outfit of the lecture-halls, the educational appliances, and the means of instruction. All means of education and instruction, clothing and food, supplied by the community, will be such as to give no pupil an advantage over another. The number and the ability of the teaching body will be in proportion to the demands.

“Such will be the education of both sexes—equal and common —for the separation of the sexes can be justified only in those cases in which the distinction of sex makes it an imperative duty. And this system of education, strictly organized, under efficient control, continued to that stage of life when society shall declare its youth to be of age, will eminently qualify both sexes for all rights and duties which society grants or imposes on its fullgrown members. Thus society can rest satisfied that it has educated members that are perfectly developed in every direction.”¹

¹ Die Frau, pp. 322-324, 328.

This is one of the midsummer night’s dreams in which Bebel’s “Frau” delights to revel. How grossly immoral such dreams are needs hardly to be stated. The usurpation of education by the state, however, is quite logical according to the principles of socialism. If socialism is to effect absolute equality in the conditions of life, it must first of all remove the universal source of social inequality, i.e., unequal education; and this can be done only by making education a social concern. Such a regulation would, of course, not hinder mothers from suckling their own children and nursing them to a certain age. But mothers and children would be placed under the supervision of the body social; for there would be no servants in those days: physicians, surgeons, midwives, etc., would be in the service of the body politic; those able to work would have to contribute their share to the social production, while the care of those unable to work would devolve upon the community. The care and treatment of mothers in confinement and of their children would, of course, be the concern of the state. For if the care of the children were left to the parents, it might happen that childless husbands and wives who have never been prevented from work would attain to a much higher income than others who would have to provide for the support of a numerous family, and would thus be prevented from taking an active part in production. And if the father or mother should fall sick it might easily happen that an entire family would be exposed to starvation, while another would enjoy all comforts. And how could a mother, without the aid of servants, bring up and educate a large family, say of ten or twelve children? If, therefore, education were left to the parents themselves it would be the duty of the community at least to give an additional allowance from the public produce for their support, and to make provision for them in case of sickness. In brief, parents would have to be relieved by the state of the burden of supporting their children.

Therefore both the nourishment and the education of the children in the socialist state would be a public affair, and would be directed and controlled by the entire body social. Thus the chief duty of parents, for the sake of which marriage has been instituted as an indissoluble union, would cease to exist; for a life-long union and co-operation on the part of parents is not required for the mere propagation of children. And even though in the socialist state the indissolubility of marriage might be sanctioned by law, yet the integrity of the family would receive the death-blow. That which binds husband and wife most closely is not only the actual existence of offspring, but, above all, the consciousness that upon their united efforts and care depends the weal or woe of their children. Parents have to provide for the support and the development of their children; upon their care, in the first place, depend the life, the future position, the social standing, the honor, and the eternal welfare of their children. This consciousness urges them on to untiring activity. What they have been able to accumulate by their toil falls to the advantage of their offspring, in whom they, as it were, continue to live, and who naturally inherit the fruits of their cares and toils.

On the other hand, the consciousness that they owe to their parents, not only their life itself, but also their preservation, education, and position in society—in short, all they possess—binds the children in intimate love to their parents. They know that their own fortune is closely linked together with that of their parents. Hence there exists between them mutual sympathy in joys and sorrows. In socialism all this would cease to exist; for the entire social body would form but one family. What would become of parental authority if children knew that the state provided for their sustenance, or, at least, remunerated parents for the care bestowed upon them? Would not such a system greatly promote rash marriages and facilitate divorces, particularly as in the socialist state marriage would be a purely private concern?