Posts Tagged liberalism

The Failed Communist Experiment With ‘Free Love’


Thinking of “free love” may invoke Woodstock imagery rather than early 20th century Soviet Russia, but it was the early communist regime that undertook perhaps the most ambitious attempt at unleashing human sexuality—with predictable results.

As soon as Communists took power in 1917 in Russia, they began systematically to enact policies following the doctrines of Karl Marx. Their dream of materialistic utopia could be attained “only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions,” Marx wrote in the Communist Manifesto.

That not only included confiscating “means of production,” like factories and land, but also disintegrating the institution of the family. Communists saw commitment to family as an obstacle to people’s devotion to the pursuit of their utopia. Instead, people were to live in “free unions,” mating at will.

Masses of Russians, especially urbanites, were sold on the party line that moral restraint on sexual desire, rooted in family ethics, had no benefits and was instead harmful.

The Communists convinced women they were “slaves” in their own homes, cooking for their own families, and raising their own children. Women would have been much more “free,” they said, working in state-owned factories.

What about the children left behind? They were to be taken away from mothers as early as possible—herded into preschools, daycare centers, and later schools—to be raised by the state as the next generation of “liberated” cogs in the socialist machine.

Based on Russian law and tradition, wives were materially dependent on their husbands, while husbands had an obligation to care and provide for their wives and the whole family. At the time, Russia enjoyed a certain degree of religious freedom, and individual religions were left to govern the rules of marriage. Divorce was limited to resolving situations like infidelity, abandonment, or impotence.

Communists scrapped and denounced the laws and traditions wholesale, just as Marx dictated, and put in place the 1918 Family Code. The law was “nothing less than the most progressive family legislation the world had ever seen,” wrote Wendy Goldman, history professor at Carnegie Mellon University and expert on Russian history, in her book “Women, the State and Revolution: Soviet Family Policy and Social Life, 1917-1936.”

Religious weddings were no longer considered valid. Instead, registry offices were set up, where people could come and simply register as married. Just as easily, at a request of either partner, they could request a divorce.

“The process of divorce is so simple that there is a loss of neither money nor time. Under the current law, the act of dissolving a marriage can be completed in fifteen minutes,” wrote P. Zagarin, a writer on the family, in 1927.

The idea was to “liberate” women from marriage and thus the family. And the idea caught on.

“Although Soviet citizens were slow to abandon church marriage completely, they availed themselves of the new divorce laws with striking alacrity,” Goldman wrote. “The crush of couples pushing through the doors of [registry offices] in search of divorce easily overwhelmed the first blissful pairs of newlyweds straggling out.”

By the end of 1918, almost 7,000 couples divorced in Moscow alone, while fewer than 6,000 married. In 1926, Moscow saw 6.1 divorces per 1,000 people—almost twice as many as New York City in 2014.

Countrywide, one Soviet couple divorced for every seven marriages in 1926. Three times the rate of Germany, more than 3.5 times that of France, and 26 times that of England and Wales. The only other country, at the time, with a comparable divorce rate was the United States.

Encouraged by the Communists’ teachings of unfettered sexuality, people increasingly stopped bothering with registering marriages altogether.

“The broad mass of people do not regard registration of marriage as the basis of marital relations. De facto voluntary unions are becoming ever more widespread,” wrote A. Stel’makhovich, chairman of the Moscow provincial court, in 1926.


Instead of liberating women, the regime gave men the perfect excuse to abandon their families. Many men suddenly found they had “nothing in common” with their wives, while, shortly after a divorce, discovering striking commonalities with younger, unburdened women.

If extracting alimony seems hard in the 21st century, it was more so in 1920s Russia. Courts became overburdened with child support cases and men found many ways to avoid payments, like changing jobs and moving.

Making things worse, after a decade of war, civil war, and Red Terror, men were in short supply, making remarrying easier.

The promise that government would take care of children fell devastatingly short. In 1926-27, preschools served about 150,000 children out of a population of 10 million.

At the time, Vera Lebedeva, the head of the Department for the Protection of Maternity and Infancy, said: “The weakness of the marital tie and divorce create masses of single women who carry the burden of child care alone. Imagine yourself such a woman, without support from your husband, with a child on your hands, laid off due to a reduction in staff, and thrown out of the dormitory … with no possibility to continue supporting yourself.”

Women trying to sell their ornaments and clothes in a street market during a Russian famine in October 1921. (Topical Press Agency/Getty Images)

Women trying to sell their ornaments and clothes in a street market during a Russian famine in October 1921. (Topical Press Agency/Getty Images)

Oftentimes, the women ended up on the streets.

“The contrast between the socialist ideal of free union and the conditions of the time was nowhere so starkly depicted as in the spectacle of women selling themselves on the streets,” Goldman wrote. “It made a mockery of the idea that women were free, independent individuals who could enter a union on the basis of personal choice.”

The concept of free union failed even more miserably in the countryside. Divorce meant dividing the already small farming plots between the exes, who may have remarried and divorced again and again, quickly leaving everybody with land too scattered to depend on for survival. On the other hand, if policies kept the farms whole, women were left with next to nothing after a divorce.

Some could have blamed the failure of “free love” on a lack of contraception, but natality was already low, not to mention massive war and Red Terror casualties. With a demographic disaster looming, Russia actually needed more children, not fewer.

Some could have argued the Soviets just needed more preschools and daycare centers. But even if the state could accommodate all children, it’s unlikely mothers would have found it desirable to give up their offspring completely to the state.

Some could have said women just needed more jobs, but that would have only made their situation less miserable. “Even if a woman worked, divorce signified a substantial drop in her standard of living,” Goldman wrote.

To reverse a society-wide chaos, by the 1940s the Soviet Union had abandoned the “free love” ideology and returned to pro-family policies, outlawing abortion, making divorce more complicated, imposing higher penalties for abandoning a family, and encouraging women to have as many children as possible.

“The idea that the state would assume the functions of the family was abandoned,” Goldman wrote.

Communism is estimated to have killed around 100 million people, yet its crimes have not been compiled and its ideology still persists. Epoch Times seeks to expose the history and beliefs of this movement, which has been a source of tyranny and destruction since it emerged.

See entire article series here.

Tags: , ,

10 Reasons Why Liberals Are Barbarians

Feminist Mob

A question you may have asked at some point is: Why are civilized men and women in the West facilitating the decay of their own civilization? This, however, is a fallen question, because one of its premises is false. Those who facilitate the destruction of their own civilization aren’t really civilized people at all. They’re barbarians.

The term “barbarian” has been with us since ancient Greece, used to describe people with a set of behaviors and character traits antithetical to those that produced Western civilization. According to the ancient Greeks, barbarians are “like children, unable to speak or reason properly, cowardly, effeminate, luxurious, cruel, unable to control their appetites and desires, [and] politically unable to govern themselves.” They are also lazy and undisciplined.

Here are the ten traits of barbarity:

1. Childish


Barbarians are naïve or ignorant, either lacking real-world experience or dismissing it in favor of their own private fancies and superstitions. You can see this in SJWs’ proclamations that all cultures are equal and that multiculturalism is good. They make this claim because it’s a nice idea, even though world history and the European migrant crisis show that multiculturalism is, as Angela Merkel finally admitted, “a grand delusion.”

2. Lazy

We Can Haz Government Handouts (2)

Barbarians are lazy, and they seek to have things without producing them. SJWs create welfare to give to people money that they didn’t earn. SJWs also create affirmative action and anti-discrimination laws to alter workplace demographics. Instead of creating their own companies to hire women and minorities, they use the government to force existing companies to do it (By the way, crony capitalists are lazy too).

3. Undisciplined


Barbarians lack discipline themselves, and they do not instill discipline in their children. SJWs project this pathology onto society, working to undermine the cultivation of discipline in the children of others.

For SJWs, physical punishment, rigorous schoolwork, and systems of competition and reward must be eradicated from every home and school.

4. Unable To Speak Or Reason Properly

Unable to reason

Barbarians have difficulty with reasoning skills such as logical analysis and extrapolation. SJWs pervert words and pervert reasoning in the pursuit of sophistry. An example of this is SJWs’ use of “hate” and various “phobias.” In response to a utilitarian argument against Syrian mass-immigration, an SJW’s first move is to proclaim “Islamophobia,” a sort of incantation to dismiss arguments and shut down the reasoning process.

5. Cowardly

Cowardly (02)

The scarcity of physical danger in Western societies means that there is little opportunity for physical cowardice. The SJW is foremost a moral coward. He shirks responsibility and duty. He has no love of truth, and is ready to speak and behave dishonestly whenever it suits him. He does what is easy, rather than what is right.

In the US, feminists enthusiastically perpetuate discredited myths about campus rape and wage gaps. In Europe, SJW government officials abandoned their duty to protect their citizens by opening the borders to over a million migrants. Even worse, they continue to put their citizens in danger by harboring and accepting new migrants, all while colluding to suppress information about skyrocketing numbers of rapes and other crimes.

Also, safe spaces.

6. Effeminate


In addition to their appetites, barbarians are moved primarily by their emotions. For example, SJW have irrational maternal feelings that lead them to infantilize women and minorities. They want college instructors to provide “trigger warnings” for their classes because they view college students as young children whose feelings must be protected at all costs, rather than as adults who need to confront uncomfortable topics in order to grow.

7. Luxurious


Barbarians seek comfort and decadence. They live beyond their means in their personal lives, and in their political lives they support their government doing the same. SJWs support the government borrowing money to pay for endless welfare and pet projects (like $3 million to study why lesbians are fat).

8. Cruel


The cruelty of SJWs is often indirect and non-physical. Examples include trying to get a man fired for his views on feminism, or twisting the law in an effort to bankrupt a family-owned business for their religious beliefs.

9. Unable To Control Their Appetites And Desires

Unable to control their appetites

Barbarians act on their every compulsion, whether it be for food, sex, or the desire to buy something. The barbarian’s motto is “if it feels good, do it.” SJWs have pushed for gay marriage, slut-walks, and “fat acceptance,” all celebrating unfettered indulgence in bodily appetites.

10. Politically Unable To Govern Themselves

Unable to govern themselves

Barbarians create societies not governed by laws, but rather by the whims of those with power. SJWs warp and ape the rule of law, creating the law of the ruler. The rule of law means having a clearly articulated set of laws that are dutifully enforced. In contrast, the law of the ruler is inarticulate and capriciously enforced.

An example of this is judicial activism, used for things like overturning state-level constitutional bans on gay marriage because, you know, reasons.

The Big Picture

The fundamental difference between civilized men and barbarians is that civilized men build civilizations, while barbarians cannot. Firstly, so long as they possess barbaric traits, barbarians will never build their own civilization. Secondly, whenever barbarians manage to conquer a civilization, that civilization falls to ruin.

Lastly, whenever a civilization allows decadence to breed barbarity within its borders, that civilization begins to decay. Note the similarity between the words “decadence” and “decay.” The word “decadence” originally did not refer to the opulence of ancient Rome at the height of its power, but to the degeneration that such opulence produced.

Going Forward

Firstly, know thyself. Once you know the traits of a barbarian, it’s worth asking if you can find any of them in yourself.

Secondly, know your enemy. You have a clear metric for identifying barbarians by simply looking for barbaric traits and asking who undermines civilization. Ideas, behaviors, and trends contributing to the decline of Western civilization might appear to be separate, but they are merely different facets of the same barbarian ethos.

Lastly, decide where you stand. In your political lives, wherever you have a voice or a vote, you can choose to defend and advance civilization and its values. In your personal lives, you can choose to live as civilized men, and to pass on civilized values to your children.

Read More: 4 Reasons Why Leftists Are Clinically Insane