Open Marriage in Bolshevik Russia: The Bourgeois Paradox

By: Capitalist Octopus In November of 1917 the Bolsheviks, seeking to spread communism to a world in the midst of war, took power in Russia. The magnitude of the revolution brought about many serious challenges to its survival including civil war and foreign opposition from reactionary armies. As such, sex was largely unimportant to the Party in discussions of the revolution in the first few years of the USSRs existence. Despite this, the Bolsheviks implemented many revolutionary sexual laws enforced as means to destroy the bourgeois morality that had plagued Russia under Tsarist rule. These laws were largely opportunistic as they relied upon the approval of the ever changing definition of bourgeois, instead of existing under defendable and valued premises. Due to this, most of the progressive laws passed in the early years of the revolution would later be overturned by Stalin due to Party perception of these sexual liberties as bourgeois. Far before Stalins rise to power, however, the debate and eventual ruling on the question of open marriages and free love foreshadowed what would come of the sexual liberties that were more enshrined in society at the time. Open marriage was discouraged in the USSR due to the Bolshevik claim that it was not conducive to a greater communist society, according to their ever changing definition of bourgeois. Upon taking power, the state of sex in Russia was not the primary concern of the Bolsheviks, yet despite this, they enacted some of the most progressive sexual laws in the world at the time. These laws were decisively progressive, in that they focused upon the wellbeing of traditionally oppressed groups such as homosexuals and women. For example, in 1922, all criminal sanctions against homosexuality were removed, making sodomy and queer lifestyles legal.1 This is not to say that homosexuality was entirely embraced in the USSR, but in comparison to its legal standing in the Western world at the time, it was far safer. In a subsequent decision that was particularly beneficial to women, all contraception,

Dan Healey, Homosexual Desire in Revolutionary Russia, Chicago: University of Chicago P, 2001, 3.

including birth control, was made legal and available in 1920. Abortion was also made legal at any time during a pregnancy, saving women from the unhygienic and unsafe covert abortions they had been forced to seek out in the past.2 Additionally, in terms of marriage, numerous advances were made. In 1918, the Bolsheviks classified marriage as a civil contract, removing it from the authority of the Church. As a result, divorce became legal and easily accessible, leading to the freedom of many women previously trapped in broken marriages.3 In addition to the availability of divorce, the Bolsheviks also allowed women to claim alimony from former husbands. Finally, the concept of an illegitimate child was abolished, which allowed women to claim alimony from the fathers of children they had out of wedlock.4 Many of these progressive changes enacted by the Bolsheviks came out of a desire to destroy the bourgeois morality of the past. In his famous interview with Clara Zetkin, Lenin made this point particularly clear as he claimed that, In relations between man and man, between man and woman, feelings and thoughts are becoming revolutionised. 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.5 Although the Bolsheviks did not highly prioritize sex, overthrowing anything resembling the bourgeois past was of dire importance, and thus defining appropriate sexuality became assimilated in the parties effort to determine what being a proletariat meant in all aspects of life. Despite this, a trend emerged amongst the Bolsheviks which saw them focus on what should not be in the future of sex, while failing to describe exactly what the future of sex in the USSR should look
2 3

Anna Clark, Desire: A History of European Sexuality, New York: Routledge, 2008, 187. Ibid 4 Ibid 5 Clara Zetkin, "Lenin on the Women's Question," Marxists,<http://www.marxists.org/archive/zetkin/1920/lenin/zetkin1.htm>.

like. This inability to provide an ideal future in terms of sexuality is deeply rooted in the communist tradition, as even Engels stated that: What we can now conjecture about the way in which sexual relations will be ordered after the impending overthrow of capitalist production is mainly of a negative character, limited for the most part to what will disappear. But what will there be new? That will be answered when a new generation has grown up. When these people are in the world they will care precious little about what anybody thinks they ought to do.6 As Engels predicted, since the party had no concrete plan for the future of sex, a new and young generation came along in the USSR with a response to a sexual question that had not yet been answered. This question revolved around marriage, monogamy, and free love. While it was clear that Lenin and other party members detested the former state of bourgeois marriage and thus called for it to be dismembered, the alternative was not clear. If bourgeois morality was to be destroyed, what would replace it?

With the support of Soviet youth, the daughter of a former Tsarist general stormed the USSR with an answer to the marriage question. Alexandra Kollontai was a highly educated member of the bourgeois class who rebelled against her family, left her husband, and became a professional revolutionary.7 As a party official and writer, Kollontai was unlike much of the rest of the party, as she dedicated her time to fighting for changes that would improve the lives of women specifically. As the head of the Zhenotdel (the womens section of the Central Committee of the Communist Party) from 1917 on, Kollontai exerted a great deal of influence over women in the USSR, specifically those from younger generations.8 This was important, as Kollontai was adamantly opposed to the bourgeois conception of marriage. As a dedicated Marxist like Lenin, Kollontais opposition to bourgeois marriage was due to its inherent reliance upon class and private property to exist. Kollontai claimed that, Bourgeois morality, with its introverted individualistic family based entirely on private property, has
6 7

Friedrich Engels, The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, New York: International, 1942, 73. Clark, 186. 8 Carleton, 38.

carefully cultivated the idea that one partner should completely possess the other. It has been very successful. The idea of possession is more pervasive now than under the patrimonial system of marriage relationships.9 Kollontai went beyond merely critiquing bourgeois marriage, however, criticizing the bourgeois conception of love as well. Due to the economic disparity present in society, Kollontai believed that men and women could never be equal, and thus that true love was never possible.

In crafting her response to solve the inadequacies of bourgeois marriage, Kollontai congratulated the Bolsheviks for their decision to pass laws which would inevitably help women. Kollontai claimed that:

The attempt by the middle-class intelligentsia to replace indissoluble marriage by the freer, more easily broken ties of civil marriage destroys the essential basis of the social stability of the, bourgeoisie. It destroys the monogamous, property-orientated family. On the other hand, a greater fluidity in relationships between the sexes coincides with and is even the indirect result of one of the basic tasks of the working class. The rejection of the element of submission in marriage is going to destroy the last artificial ties of the bourgeois family.10 Kollontai had been pushing for the legalization and accessibility of divorce, as well as the transformation of marriage into a civil union for a considerable period of time before the Bolsheviks passed the relevant laws. Yet despite this, Kollontai believed that the inequality inherent in bourgeois marriage was due to private property and class conflict, and as such merely changing laws in society would not be enough to eliminate the problems.

In light of this, Kollontai proposed that the ideal marriage, which she called a lovecomradeship, would have to align to three major principles. First, both partners would need to shed the stereotypes which had confined them in the past. For women, this meant ending the slavish

Alexandra Kollontai, Sexual Relations and the Class Struggle, Bristol: Falling Wall P, 1972, 6. Kollontai, 11.

10

suppression of themselves, while for men it meant shedding their egoism. Additionally, both partners would have to recognize the rights of the other, and thus claim no ownership of the other in any way. Finally, both partners would need to practice comrade sensitivity, which she described as the ability to listen to and understand the other.11 In describing the conclusion of these premises, Kollontai claimed that The sexual act must be seen not as something shameful and sinful but as something which is as natural as the other needs of a healthy organism, such as hunger or thirst. Such phenomena cannot be judged as moral or immoral.12 While this idea was often misinterpreted in attacks against Kollontai, Kollontai did not advocate for purely physical sex. Instead she called for love to be a prerequisite for sex, yet did not eliminate the possibility of having multiple partners, or switching between partners without trouble. Essentially, Kollontai advocated for open marriage as a means to bring about true equality between the sexes and thus the possibility of true love.

In describing her new conception of marriage grounded on Marxist terms, Kollontai claimed that Communist society has this to say to the working woman and working man: You are young, you love each other. Everyone has the right to happiness. Therefore live your life. Do not flee happiness. Do not fear marriage, even though under capitalism marriage was truly a chain of sorrow.13 She also added that there would be No more domestic bondage for women. No more inequality within the family. No need for women to fear being left without support and with children to bring up.14 The young generation to which Kollontai preached was largely receptive to her calls. For example, a 1922 poll at the height of Kollontais fame indicated that only 14.3 percent of women and 21.4 percent of men polled believed that marriage was ideal for them.15 Many women who responded to the survey claimed that their distaste of bourgeois marriage was because of the submissive role they would naturally have
11 12

Carleton, 39. Kollontai, Alexandra. "Theses on Communist Morality." Marxists. <http://www.marxists.org/archive/kollonta/1921/theses-morality.htm>. 13 Alexandra Kollontai, Communism and the Family. London: Pluto P, 1971. 14 Ibid 15 Carleton, 37.

to play. Short-term romantic liaisons seemed to be preferred amongst the youth, though many claimed that when they eventually did marry, they wished to have the type of marriage Kollontai described. Youth viewed the revolutionary nature of the emerging USSR as license to attack all of the old conventions and thus largely rallied behind Kollontais endorsement of open marriages based on respect and equality as the future for communist sexuality. As such, it is clear that Kollontai attempted to prescribe a model for the future of sexual relations in the USSR based on Marxist principles, thereby avoiding the bourgeois nature of marriage in the past.

Despite Kollontais claim of adhering to Marxist principles, older members of society, and a majority of party members rejected her proposition on the grounds that it was in fact bourgeois and thus not conducive to the revolution. A member of the Komsomol Central Comittee, an organization for Soviet youth, illustrated this sentiment as he claimed that What was useful then is harmful now. Disrespect for social norms, fighting against the order-obsessed bourgeoisie- that was a holy affair; in the Soviet state an analogous struggle is pure counterrevolution.16 Essentially, what was once revolutionary and helpful to the success of communism was now regarded as being bourgeois. This aptly illustrates the idea that the Bolsheviks views on relationships were opportunistically based on what would benefit communism, instead of what was morally right in and of itself. In addition to the sentiment of a youth leader, senior party members largely passed this type of criticism on to Kollontai as well due to her political writings and novels. Kollontais famous novel Love of the Worker Bees published in 1922 portrayed a sexually freed woman named Zhenya who has sex with her step father simply because she felt the urge.17 Kollontai does not explicitly condemn Zhenya in her novel, but instead emphasizes that her free attitude towards sex, while not ideal, can be reconciled due to her ability to be a productive member of communist society.

16 17

Carleton, 24. Ibid, 42.

Regardless of this though, many critics accused Kollontai of attempting to secretly restore bourgeois lifestyle into the USSR through these works. Kollontais reputation in the USSR rapidly deteriorated as she was attacked publically by numerous party officials for advocating a bourgeois ideal of marriage, despite the fact that she believed it was the only acceptable type of relationship for a Marxist to have. The party officials accused Kollontais conception of marriage as being bourgeois for numerous reasons. Primarily, many believed that despite her ideological reasoning for open marriage, it would inevitably lead to relations between the sexes being merely about sex. A Professor Zavadovsky illustrated this when he claimed that, Our youth should take a red hot poker and burn out of their minds all attempts to disguise animal lust by invoking ideological principles.18 Lenin also decried the seemingly animalistic nature of Kollontais suggestion for open marriage by claiming that, Of course thirst must be satisfied, but will the normal man in normal circumstances lie down in the gutter and drink out of a puddle, or out of a glass with a rim greasy from many lips?19 Additionally, and perhaps most importantly, Lenin and other high ranking party officials believed that all of the attention Kollontai was giving to open marriages and personal relationships was counterproductive to the communist cause. Lenin believed that youth needed to discipline their bodies as so much attention to sex was counterrevolutionary. He also added that women like Kollontai who confused their personal romances with politics could not be trusted to carry out the communist struggle.20 Essentially, the amount of attention given to sex by Kollontai was regarded as bourgeois by party officials because it distracted workers from the more important task at hand, which was the survival of the USSR.

The disdain of open marriage was reflected in Kollontais political career from the year of the publication of her infamous novel onwards. Kollontais credibility plummeted, she was frequently the victim of propaganda, and she was eventually transferred from the head of Zhenotdel to a low level
18 19

Carleton, 34. Zetkin. 20 Ibid.

foreign ambassador position in 1926, and replaced by a far more conservative woman who called for the traditional structure of marriage to reign.21 Kollontais infamy grew to such proportions that it mirrored the downfall of another once well respected Marxist, Leon Trotsky. Both Kollontai and Trotsky held beliefs that were once regarded to be in the interest of the proletariat. Yet with the change of definition of the term bourgeois under the new leadership that arose after the death of Lenin in 1924, both figures were cast as bourgeois counterrevolutionaries. With Kollontais prescription for open marriage as the cure to bourgeois morality condemned by the party, many of the laws which Kollontai relied upon as standard would eventually disappear as well due to the new conception of bourgeois under Stalins rule. Stalin stressed the importance of the traditional family in the USSR, as he needed a large populace to support his Five Year Plan which would see mass industrialization of the USSR. In light of this, in 1936 abortion became illegal once more, monogamous marriages which would produce many children were encouraged and compensated, and divorce became far more difficult to attain.22 Just over ten years after the Bolsheviks passed some of the most revolutionary sexual laws in history, the traditional family was legally restored.

When the Bolsheviks came to power in Russia, the very fibres of bourgeois sexuality were threatened. Unfortunately, beyond merely opposing the bourgeois remnants of sexuality in the past, the Bolsheviks had no clear ideal to work towards in the future. This left the USSR susceptible to a conservative backlash on the progress that they did achieve. Alexandra Kollontai attempted to prevent this reversion to bourgeois relations and laws by providing an ideal to work towards grounded in Marxist terms. Her proposals were eventually rejected by the party, and she was treated as an outcast. With the path cleared of any notable force working towards the replacement of bourgeois marriage with open marriage, bourgeois marriage eventually resurfaced. It resurfaced not only in the way in which

21 22

Carleton, 46. Clark, 189.

relationships were conducted, but also in terms of the laws that governed them. Open marriage, which was once thought to promote true love and freedom for participants from being treated like property, was now regarded as a bourgeois concept, with the traditional familys ability to mass produce children being regarded as revolutionary. In this sense the sexually liberating potential of the Bolsheviks turned out to be vastly overestimated; a sexual revolution betrayed.

WORKS CITED

Carleton, Gregory. Sexual Revolution in Bolshevik Russia. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh P, 2005. Clark, Anna. Desire: A History of European sexuality. New York: Routledge, 2008. Engels, Friedrich. The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State. New York: International, 1942. Healey, Dan. Homosexual Desire in Revolutionary Russia. Chicago: University of Chicago P, 2001. Kollontai, Alexandra. Communism and the Family. London: Pluto P, 1971. Kollontai, Alexandra. Sexual Relations and the Class Struggle. Bristol: Falling Wall P, 1972. Kollontai, Alexandra. "Theses on Communist Morality." Marxists. <http://www.marxists.org/archive/kollonta/1921/theses-morality.htm>. Kowalsky, Sharon A. Deviant Women. DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois UP, 2009. Zetkin, Clara. "Lenin on the Women's Question." Marxists. <http://www.marxists.org/archive/zetkin/1920/lenin/zetkin1.htm>.