Monday, April 23, 2018

Sex Workers, Coal Miners, And Morality---Part Five Of Seven

This is the fith in a series of seven posts taking up questions of sex work, class and class formation, revolutionary theory and practice, and socialist morality. Here we have a brief examination of some words from Lenin which form a response to Alexandra Kollontai, who we spent time with in our third and fourth entries. Please read our first post in this series in order to understand why we are posting on these topics. Your comments and criticisms are invited! 


Lenin’s Response

Lenin objected to some of Kollontai’s points while maintaining a critical and self-critical attitude. The socialist Clara Zetkin records the following from Lenin:

“… (A) large part of the youth is keen on ‘revising bourgeois conceptions and morality' concerning sexual questions…The new values are crystallizing slowly, in struggle. In the relations between man and man, between man and woman, feelings and thoughts are becoming revolutionized. New boundaries are being set up between the rights of the individual and the rights of the whole, in the duties of individuals…It is a slow and often a very painful process of decay and growth. And particularly in the sphere of sexual relationships, of marriage and the family. The decay, the corruption, the filth of bourgeois marriage, with its difficult divorce, its freedom for the man, its enslavement for the woman, the repulsive hypocrisy of sexual morality and relations fill the most active minded and best people with deep disgust.”

Kollontai and Lenin shared a critique of bourgeois morality and hypocrisy and an analysis of the laws and customs which oppressed and exploited women. Lenin noted “The desire and urge to enjoyment easily attain unbridled force at a time when powerful empires are tottering, old forms of rule breaking down, when a whole social world is beginning to disappear. Sex and marriage forms, in their bourgeois sense, are unsatisfactory! A revolution in sex and marriage is approaching, corresponding to the proletarian revolution…Nothing could be more false than to preach monkish asceticism and the sanctity of dirty bourgeois morality to the youth. It is particularly serious if sex becomes the main mental concern during those years when it is physically most obvious. What fatal effects that has!”

Lenin framed part of the problem in theoretical and subjective terms. He said that “The changed attitude of the young people to questions of sexual life is of course based on a `principle' and a theory. Many of them call their attitude `revolutionary' and `Communistic.’ And they honestly believe that it is so…Although I am nothing but a gloomy ascetic, the so-called ‘new sexual life' of the youth–and sometimes of the old–often seems to me to be purely bourgeois, an extension of bourgeois brothels. That has nothing whatever in common with freedom of love as we Communists understand it You must be aware of the famous theory that in Communist society the satisfaction of sexual desires, of love, will be as simple and unimportant as drinking a glass of water…Its adherents maintain that it is Marxist. But thanks for such Marxism which directly and immediately attributes all phenomena and changes in the ideological superstructure of society to its economic basis! Matters aren't quite as simple as that.”

Lenin saw “this glass of water theory is completely un-Marxist, and moreover, anti-social.” Here Lenin went beyond a crass mischaracterization of Marxism and said, “In sexual life there is not only simple nature to be considered, but also cultural characteristics, whether they are of a high or low order…The relations of the sexes to each other are not simply an expression of the play of forces between the economics of society and a physical need, isolated in thought, by study, from the physiological aspect. It is rationalism, and not Marxism, to want to trace changes in these relations directly, and dissociated from their connections with ideology as a whole, to the economic foundations of society…As a communist I have not the least sympathy for the glass of water theory, although it bears the fine title `satisfaction of love.' In any case, this liberation of love is neither new, nor Communist…In bourgeois practice it became the emancipation of the flesh.”

Lenin anticipated his critics and added that “I don't mean to preach asceticism by my criticism. Not in the least. Communism will not bring asceticism, but joy of life, power of life, and a satisfied love life will help to do that. But in my opinion the present widespread hypertrophy in sexual matters does not give joy and force to life, but takes it away. In the age of revolution that is bad, very bad…The revolution demands concentration, increase of forces…Dissoluteness in sexual life is bourgeois, is a phenomenon of decay. The proletariat is a rising class. It doesn't need intoxication as a narcotic or a stimulus…It must not and shall not forget, forget the shame, the filth, the savagery of capitalism. It receives the strongest urge to fight from a class situation, from the Communist ideal…Self-control, self-discipline is not slavery, not even in love…”


No comments:

Post a Comment