@Arup
"According to Marxism all women are prostitutes(See the Manifesto of the Communist Party(1847) by Marx and Engels."
- no, it is not written in the said manifesto.
-----------------------
Here is the extract from the Manifesto of the comm
Here is the extract from the Manifesto of the
communist
party by Marx and Engels:
"Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this
infamous proposal of the Communists.
On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family,
based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed
form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this
state
of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the
family among proletarians, and in public prostitution.
The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its
complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of
capital.
Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children
by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.
But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we
replace home education by social.
And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the
social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention
direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, etc.? The
Communists have not intended the intervention of society in
education; they do but seek to alter the character of that
intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the
ruling class.
communist
party by Marx and Engels:
"Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this
infamous proposal of the Communists.
On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family,
based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed
form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this
state
of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the
family among proletarians, and in public prostitution.
The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its
complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of
capital.
Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children
by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.
But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we
replace home education by social.
And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the
social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention
direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, etc.? The
Communists have not intended the intervention of society in
education; they do but seek to alter the character of that
intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the
ruling class.
The bourgeois claptrap about the family and education, about the
hallowed correlation of parents and child, becomes all the more
disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the
family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their
children transformed into simple articles of commerce and
instruments of labor.
But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the
bourgeoisie in chorus.
The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production. He
hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in
common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion that the
lot
of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.
He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do
away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.
For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous
indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they
pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the
Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce free love; it
has existed almost from time immemorial.
Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of
their
proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common
prostitutes,take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other's wives. (Ah,
those were the days!)
hallowed correlation of parents and child, becomes all the more
disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the
family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their
children transformed into simple articles of commerce and
instruments of labor.
But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the
bourgeoisie in chorus.
The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production. He
hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in
common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion that the
lot
of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.
He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do
away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.
For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous
indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they
pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the
Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce free love; it
has existed almost from time immemorial.
Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of
their
proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common
prostitutes,take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other's wives. (Ah,
those were the days!)
Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and
thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be
reproached
with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a
hypocritically concealed, an openly legalized system of free love.
For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present
system of production must bring with it the abolition of free love
springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and
private. "
thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be
reproached
with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a
hypocritically concealed, an openly legalized system of free love.
For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present
system of production must bring with it the abolition of free love
springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and
private. "
