DID THE BOLSHEVIKS DESTROY THE INSTITUTION OF THE FAMILY?
Putin recently expressed himself as follows:
“Now regarding the fact that initially after 1917 all the activities of the state were aimed at the destruction of the family - this is not quite true. IN THE BEGINNING IT WAS INDEED SO. It was presented in a primitive form as the generalization of women, but to people with a primitive socialist consciousness. And the elite had a completely different idea, the elite had it based on the provisions of Marx, Engels, including Engels' work “On the Family, Private Property and the State”. In it he wrote that if strict monogamy is the top of virtue, then, of course, the palm of superiority should be given to the tapeworm, where in 40 thousand of its members there are both male and female apparatuses, and it spends its whole life only copulating with itself. THAT'S WHAT THE ATTITUDE TO THE FAMILY WAS BASED ON AT FIRST, AFTER 1917. That is, free love was promoted and practiced. But later, we know how family matters were considered at party committees and local committees, how they fought for the preservation of the family. It was already a completely different story. So as Soviet society developed, and as the institutions of the state developed, the attitude to the family also changed. And here, however, it is difficult to agree with you that everything during this period was aimed at destroying the family. It seems to me that you have expressed yourself too radically.Similar nonsense is spread in scientific departments and in patriotic newspapers. Lies are the working principle of bourgeois propaganda.
It should not be overlooked that the fragment of Engels' work with the tapeworm is so deeply ingrained in the soul of all philistines that they do not remember anything in the work of the classicist except it. Whereas in this case Engels ridicules the ridiculous arguments of the bourgeois “scientists” who DETERMINE FROM THE MONOGAMY OF THE ANIMAL WORLD THE MONOGAMY OF THE HUMAN FAMILY. If Vladimir Vladimirovich had read Engels carefully, he would have noticed the following words just below:
“Although animal communities have some value for retrospective inferences about human communities, this value is only negative. In the higher vertebrates there are, so far as we know, only two forms of family known: polygamy and cohabitation in separate pairs; in both cases only one adult male, only one consort, is allowed. The jealousy of the male, which at the same time strengthens and limits the animal family, brings it into conflict with the herd; because of this jealousy the herd, a higher form of socialization, in some cases ceases to exist, in others loses its cohesion or disintegrates during heat, and at best is delayed in its further development. This alone is sufficient to prove that the FAMILY OF ANIMALS AND THE PERFECT HUMAN SOCIETY ARE IMPOSSIBLE THINGS, that primitive men, emerging from the animal state, either did not know a family at all, or, at most, knew one which is not found in animals.”Now let's look at how the Bolsheviks “destroyed the family.”
Thus, on December 18, 1917 it was adopted:
“Decree on civil marriage, on children and on the keeping of registry books.
The Russian Republic shall henceforth recognize only civil marriages.
Civil marriage shall be performed on the basis of the following rules:
I. Persons wishing to marry shall verbally announce or submit a written application to the department of marriage and birth records at the city (district, county or volost zemstvo) administration at the place of their residence.
Note. Church marriage, along with compulsory civil marriage, is a private affair of the marrying couple.
II. Applications for marriage are not accepted: a) from males earlier than 18 years of age, and from females - 16 years of birth. In Transcaucasia, natives may marry when the groom is 16 years old and the bride is 13 years old; b) from relatives in the direct line, full-blooded and not full-blooded brothers and sisters, and the existence of kinship is also recognized between a child born out of wedlock and his offspring on the one hand and his father and his relatives on the other; c) from married persons, and d) from insane persons.
III. Those wishing to marry shall come to the marriage registry office and sign that there are no obstacles to marriage listed in Article 2 of this decree and that they are entering into marriage voluntarily. Those guilty of knowingly giving false testimony that there are no obstacles listed in Article 2 shall be held criminally liable for false testimony, and their marriage shall be declared null and void.
IV. Upon taking the aforementioned signature, the head of the marriage record department shall enter the event of the marriage in the marriage record book and then declare the marriage to be valid. At the time of marriage, the married couple is free to determine whether they will henceforth be called by the surname of the husband or wife or by a joint surname.
As proof of the marriage, the couple shall immediately receive a copy of their marriage certificate.
V. Complaints against the refusal to perform a marriage or against irregularities in the record shall be filed, without time limit, with the local judge at the place of the marriage record office; the local judge's ruling on such a complaint may be appealed in general.
VI. If the former marriage record books have been destroyed or otherwise perished, or if for any other reason the married persons are unable to obtain a record of their marriage, these persons are entitled to file a statement with the appropriate marriage record office in the place of residence of both spouses or one of them that they have been married since such and such a time. Such a statement, confirmed, in addition to the subscription provided for in Article 4 of this decree, by the signature of the spouses that the marriage record book has indeed perished or that they are unable to obtain extracts of the marriage for any other valid reason, shall serve as the basis for recording the marriage again and for issuing a copy of the certificate.
About children.
VII. The birth of a child shall be recorded by the same marriage and birth records department at the place of residence of the mother, and a special entry shall be made for each birth in the book of birth records.
VIII. The birth of a child must be announced to the department either by the parents or by one of them, or by the persons in whose care the newborn child has remained after the death of the parents, indicating the name and surname to be given to the child and presenting two witnesses to certify the event of birth.
IX. Both the books of marriage records and the books of birth records shall be kept in 2 copies, one copy of which shall be sent to the appropriate court for further storage at the end of the year.
X. Children born out of wedlock shall be equalized with married children with respect to the rights and duties of both parents to their children and children to their parents.
The father and mother of the child shall be registered by the persons who have applied for and subscribed to it.
Those guilty of knowingly giving false testimony on the contents of this statement shall be held criminally liable for false testimony, and the record itself shall be declared invalid. If the father of a child born out of wedlock fails to submit the above statement, the mother of the child, his guardian or the child himself shall have the right to prove paternity by judicial procedure.And where is the “destruction of the family” in this?
Moreover, the next day a decree on the dissolution of marriage was adopted, and on September 18, 1918 a full-fledged code of “Laws on acts of civil status, marriage, family and guardianship law” was adopted.
Instead of destruction, destruction, prohibition, the BOLSHEVIKS DEVELOPED THE INSTITUTE OF THE FAMILY, PROVOSING THE SOCIALIST FAMILY A HIGH TYPE OF FAMILY.
In 1926, a new code was adopted. The most significant innovation of this code was to give legal significance to the actual marriage relationship. It was not the fact of registration of the marriage, but the mutual agreement of the parties that was decisive. The most important argument in favor of giving legal significance to de facto marital relations was statistical data showing that unregistered marriages (their total number amounted to about 7% of all marriages) usually consisted of women from the least wealthy strata of the population, who were particularly in need of legal protection. Often such women, abandoned by their de facto spouse, were left without means of subsistence, since they had neither the right to property nor the right to alimony under the law. The second major innovation was the replacement of the regime of separation of marital property with a regime of community. This was justified by the fact that the principle of separation did not give women who had no source of income the right to the family property, since all property was acquired with the husband's income.
And raising the age for women for obvious reasons.
Is this the destruction of the family? Read carefully, make sure that Putin and the scientific workers of the bourgeois department, writing about the destruction of the family, are blatantly lying.
Or for Putin and his kind “destruction of the family” is the overthrow of the order of legal inequality in the family? Indeed, in the code of laws of the Russian Empire it was stated that “a wife is obliged to obey her husband as the head of the family; to remain in love, honor and unlimited obedience to him, to give him every pleasure and affection...”. - This is the kind of family that the Soviet power destroyed by negation, i.e. by developing everything positive and discarding everything reactionary. In strict accordance with diamatics.
By the way, the question of equal rights for women was discussed in the I, II and III State Dumas, but was never resolved. The tsarist government stubbornly resisted extending to the female population even those meager civil rights which it was forced to proclaim by the zemstvo reform of 1864 and the Manifesto of October 17, 1905. This attitude toward women was inherent not only in the tsarist government and the ruling classes, but also in a large part of the working population, especially in the countryside.
Women's inequality was aggravated by the huge gap between the generally recognized achievements of the advanced Russian culture of the time and the spiritual life of the majority of the population, which lived in darkness and ignorance. Pre-revolutionary Russia was a country of mass illiteracy. Especially many illiterates were among women. According to a survey conducted in 1908-1913 in 12 provinces of European Russia, the illiteracy of the rural female population ranged from 74.1 (Moscow Province) to 95.2% (Penza Province). Even in Moscow in 1912. 43.4% of women could not read and write.
The above propaganda myth that the Bolsheviks destroyed the family was not invented by the Putins. Even the Russian-German bourgeois Menert wrote:
“The Bolsheviks immediately after the revolution waged a struggle against the family... And yet Russians, not being a super-civilized people, still retain today, despite all that they have had to endure in recent decades, a natural inclination to orderly sexual relations... This does not mean that they (the Communists) have overcome their inner dislike of the family. For them, the family is an eyesore, and not only because of its conservatism. They are irritated by the very existence of this one institution in the country that is not controlled by them, an original and self-contained unit, a foreign body in the state, which in all other compartments is controlled from top to bottom”.Let us give a brief overview of the Marxist position on the family in the first phase of communism.
In one of his early works, “Toward a Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right” (1843), K. Marx wrote:
“Only in civil society does family life become the life of the family, the vital manifestation of love. The landed estates, on the contrary, represent the barbarism of private property against family life”.In the first ever draft of the Communist program, compiled by Engels, “The Principles of Communism” (1847) - in response to the assertions of such 19th century poutines, as if the Communists wanted to introduce the community of wives, it was stated:
“The community of wives is a phenomenon that belongs entirely to bourgeois society and exists in its entirety at the present time in the form of prostitution. Prostitution is based on private property and will disappear with it. Hence, the communist organization, instead of introducing the community of wives, will, on the contrary, destroy it”.This thesis is repeated both in the “Communist Manifesto” and in Engels' work “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State”, which Vladimir Vladimirovich trumped.
It says the following about Marxism's “plans” for marriage and family:
“As soon as the economic considerations, as a consequence of which women put up with this usual infidelity of men, - the concern for their own existence and even more so for the future of children - fall away, so the equality of woman, achieved thanks to this, will, judging by all previous experience, contribute to an infinitely greater extent to the actual monogamy of men than to the polyandry of women.”Lenin wrote that Marxism contrasts the prostituted bourgeois family, promiscuity, and fleeting liaisons with “proletarian civil marriage with love.”
Furthermore, Lenin strongly protests against the vulgarization of the question:
“The relations between the sexes are not a mere expression of the play between social economy and physical need. It would not be Marxism but rationalism to seek to reduce directly to the economic basis of society the change of these relations in themselves, isolated from their general connection with the whole ideology.”Thus, Marx, Engels and Lenin had not even a hint of rejection of the institution of the family. They rejected only the possessive family and the mercantile marriage of convenience, demanded the liberation of marriage and family relations from the power of property and money that perverted them, fought for the equality of women with men and for the family to be based on loving relationships.
NO ONE IN THE WORLD DID MORE FOR LOVE THAN THE BOLSHEVIKS, BECAUSE IT WAS UNDER SOVIET RULE THAT WORKERS WERE FREED FROM THE OPPRESSION OF CAPITAL, FREED FROM THE VICIOUSNESS OF COMMODITY-MONEY RELATIONS, INCLUDING THROUGH THE FACT THAT EVERY CITIZEN OF THE USSR RECEIVED HOUSING AND WORK, AND THUS WAS FREE TO BUILD RELATIONSHIPS BASED ON THE HIGHEST MANIFESTATIONS OF PERSONALITY - FRIENDSHIP AND LOVE. THE COUNTRY OF LOVE WAS CALLED THE SSSR!
Personally, Kollontai and other individual writers, whom all sorts of modern “scholars” are pontificating about, were carriers of vulgar views on the family. Their views were not implemented in the Bolsheviks' policy. A lot of different literature was published in the USSR, many prominent figures, including those holding high government and party positions, spoke in the press with erroneous views on various issues, especially in the 1920s, when there was a real rampant Trotskyism and semi-trotskyism in all areas.
All those decrees on nationalization of women and commandments of sexual relations are fake or stupid leftist cranks of the youth. Lenin on the subject of leftism in these matters said:
“You know, of course, the famous theory that it is as if in Communist society to satisfy sexual aspirations and love needs is as simple and insignificant as drinking a glass of water. From this “glass of water” theory, our youth became furious, downright furious. This theory has become the evil doom of many young men and women. Its adherents claim that this theory is Marxist. Thank you for such 'Marxism'...”.Such theories were fanned by provocateurs and idiots from the left: Trotskyists, anarchists and other enemies of the labor movement. They formed the basis of bourgeois mythology on this question.
https://diasp.org/posts/23e47e10b86301388707047d7b62795e https://prorivists.org/inf_monogamy-1917/#
Russia #
USSR #
soviet #
russian #
history #
family #
bolsheviks #
socialism #
communism #
marxism #
Lenin #
lang_en #
СССР #
история
