O Francisco Feijó Delgado escreveu dois óptimos posts (como sempre, aliás) sobre (embora não só) o casamento. Podem ver-se aqui e aqui. Neste último, o Francisco contesta que eu lhe tenha dito, no outro, que penso existir uma cruzada contra o casamento. Mais concretamente: «uma “cruzada” contra o casamento como forma de organização do tecido social na qual estão francamente de acordo liberais de direita e socialistas de esquerda.»
É nesse sentido que aqui deixo este pequeno excerto de um texto de Alexandra Kollontai, escrito em 1921, intitulado: Theses on Communist Morality in the Sphere of Marital Relations. Melhor do que eu, este texto (e os muitos outros que podem com proveito ver-se aqui), mostra como capitalismo e comunismo eram — e são -, de facto, concordes nisto: desconstruir a família de modo a permitir a livre realização do indivíduo no seio de uma sociedade politicamente organizada (leia-se: de um Estado). Ora veja lá o Francisco como, aí mesmo no meio dos Estados Unidos da América, é tão despudoradamente marxista: :)
«Family and marriage are historical categories. phenomena which develop in accordance with the economic relations that exist at the given level of production. The form of marriage and of the family is thus determined by the economic system of the given epoch, and it changes as the economic base of society changes. The family, in the same way, as government, religion, science, morals, law and customs, is part of the superstructure which derives from the economic system of society.
Where economic functions are performed by the family rather than by society as a whole, family and marital relations are more stable and possess a vital capacity: “The less the development of labour, and the more limited its volume of production … the more preponderantly does the social order appear to be dominated by ties of sex” (Engels, Origins of the Family). In the period of natural economy the family formed an enclosed economic unit which was necessary for humankind and thus had a vital capacity. The family was at that time a unit of both production and consumption. Outside the family/economic unit the individual had no means, especially at the earliest levels of the development of society, of sustaining the conditions necessary for life. In some areas and in some countries where capitalism is weakly developed (among the peoples of the East, for example) the peasant family is still fundamentally a family/economic union. With the transition, however, from a natural economy to a merchant capitalist economy based on trade and exchange, the family ceases to be necessary for the functioning of society and thus loses its strength and vital capacity.
The fact that with the consolidation of the capitalist system of production, the marital/family union develops from a production unit into a legal arrangement concerned only with consumption, leads inevitably to the weakening of marital/family ties. In the era of private property and the bourgeois-capitalist economic system, marriage and the family are grounded in (a) material and financial considerations, (b) economic dependence of the female sex on the family breadwinner – the husband – rather than the social collective, and © the need to care for the rising generation. Capitalism maintains a system of individual economies: the family has a role to play in performing economic tasks and functions within the national capitalist economy. Thus under capitalism the family does not merge with or dissolve into the national economy but continues to exist as an independent economic unit, concerned with production in the case of the peasant family and consumption in the case of the urban family. The individual economy which springs from private property is the basis of the bourgeois family.
The communist economy does away with the family. In the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat there is a transition to the single production plan and collective social consumption, and the family loses its significance as an economic unit. The external economic functions of the family disappear, and consumption ceases to be organised on an individual family basis, a network of social kitchens and canteens is established. and the making, mending and washing of clothes and other aspects of housework are integrated into the national economy. In the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat the family economic unit should be recognised as being, from the point of view of the national economy. not only useless but harmful. The family economic unit involves (a) the uneconomic expenditure of products and fuel on the part of small domestic economies, and (b) unproductive labour, especially by women in the home – and is therefore in conflict with the interest of the workers’ republic in a single economic plan and the expedient use of the labour force (including women).
Under the dictatorship of the proletariat then, the material and economic considerations in which the family was grounded cease to exist. The economic dependence of women on men and the role of the family in the care of the younger generation also disappear as the communist elements in the workers’ republic grow stronger. With the introduction of the obligation of all citizens to work, woman has a value in the national economy which is independent of her family and marital status. The economic subjugation of women in marriage and the family is done away with, and responsibility for the care of the children and their physical and spiritual education is assumed by the social collective. The family teaches and instils egoism thus weakening the ties of the collective and hindering the construction of communism. However. in the new society relations between parents and children are freed from any element of material considerations and enter a new historic stage.
Once the family has been stripped of its economic functions and its responsibilities towards the younger generation and is no longer central to the existence of the woman, it has ceased to be a family. The family unit shrinks to a union of two people based on mutual agreement.
(…) In view of the need to encourage the development and growth of feelings of solidarity and to strengthen the bonds of the work collective, it should above all be established that the isolation of the “couple” as a special unit does not answer the interests of communism. Communist morality requires the education of the working class in comradeship and the fusion of the hearts and minds of the separate members of this collective. The needs and interests of the individual must be subordinated to the interests and aims of the collective. On the one hand, therefore, the bonds of family and marriage must be weakened, and on the other, men and women need to be educated in solidarity and the subordination of the will of the individual to the will of the collective. Even at this present, early stage. the workers’ republic demands that mothers, learn to be the mothers not only of their own child but of all workers’ children; it does not recognise the couple as a self-sufficient unit. and does not therefore approve of wives deserting work for the sake of this unit.
(…) Though sex love is seen in the context of the interests of the collective. communist morality demands that people are educated in sensitivity and understanding and are psychologically demanding both to themselves and to their partners. The bourgeois attitude to sexual relations as simply a matter of sex must be criticised and replaced by an understanding of the whole gamut of joyful love-experience that enriches life and makes for greater happiness. The greater the intellectual and emotional development of the individual the less place will there be in his or her relationship for the bare physiological side of love. and the brighter will be the love experience.
In the transitional period, relations between men and women must. in order to meet the interests of the workers’ collective, he based on the following considerations. (1) All sexual relationships must be based on mutual inclination, love. infatuation or passion, and in no case on financial or material motivations. All calculation in relationships must be subject to merciless condemnation. (2) The form and length of the relationship are not regulated, but the hygiene of the race. and communist morality require that relationships be based not on the sexual act alone, and that it should not be accompanied by any excesses that threaten health. (3) Those with illnesses etc. that might be inherited should not have children. (4) A jealous and proprietary attitude to the person loved must be replaced by a comradely understanding of the other and an acceptance of his or her freedom. jealousy is a destructive force of which communist morality cannot approve. (5) The bonds between the members of the collective must he strengthened. The encouragement of the intellectual, and political interests of the younger generation assists the development of healthy and bright emotions in love.
The stronger the collective, the more firmly established becomes the communist way of life. The closer the emotional ties between the members of the community, the less the need to seek a refuge from loneliness in marriage. Under communism the blind strength of matter is subjugated to the will of the strongly welded and thus unprecedentedly powerful workers’ collective. The individual has the opportunity to develop intellectually and emotionally as never before. in this collective. new forms of relationships are maturing and the concept of love is extended and expanded.»
Caríssimo, só agora consegui ler. Já nasci depois do PREC e não faltava muito para a queda do muro, pelo que me arrepio com sequer a o cabimento de uma frase começada com «Communist morality requires».
Claro que não perfilho do que ali é dito. Aliás, algumas coisas dão calafrios:
– «The family unit shrinks to a union of two people based on mutual agreement.»
– «Responsibility for the care of the children and their physical and spiritual education is assumed by the social collective».
– «The workers’ republic demands that mothers, learn to be the mothers not only of their own child but of all workers’ children».
Claro que a família não pode ser extirpada de funções, ou mesmo interesses, económicas e materiais, e sou totalmente contra a necessidade de enfraquecimento das relações intra-familiares. Há, no entanto uma ou outra coisa que concordo, como por exemplo que «jealousy is a destructive force» (!), bem como alguns dos aspectos da análise à perspectiva capitalista (sendo que nem todos, são maus).
Só não percebo é como é que viu no que escrevi uma defesa de qualquer coisa que se possa assemelhar com o este texto!
Francisco, respondo-te apressadamente, mas a questão resume-se fundamentalmente na confusão entre o que pertence à esfera da natureza e o que pertence à esfera da realização individual. A família não é, de um ponto de vista da natureza humana, nem redutível a uma unidade económica, nem subsumível numa estrutura social mais alargada (nomeadamente com características e/ou finalidades públicas). O que não quer dizer, que, na sua realização histórica, a família não se adeque e transforme de acordo com as condições económicas e políticas de cada lugar e de cada tempo. Isto dito, é bom ter em conta que tal como tu não terás visto a ideologia marxista (que aqui continua muito a dita ideologia burguesa, embora ultrapassando-a) no teu texto, ela está lá, como está na legislação que hoje se continua a produzir sobre o assunto sem que os seus legisladores lá a vejam. Porque se crê, no Ocidente, no fim da história, no fim das ideologias e na vitória da técnica e da indiferença. A nova lei do divórcio, por exemplo, promulgada em Portugal, em 2008, revoga a designação “poder parental”, a qual substitui por “responsabilidades parentais”. Eles não leram o que disse a Alexandra Kollontai, nem, talvez, o que disse Hegel e Marx e… mas o facto permanece. Estes disseram-no muito antes de aqueles terem legislado. Como quando pretendem que o casamento não seja mais do que a ligação afectiva e emocional entre duas pessoas da qual não resulta ímediatamente qualquer outro vínculo moral… lá está: eles não leram. Em princípio nem sequer sabem. Mas cumprem, com zelo, o que estes outros há já algum tempo projectaram. Mas, como te disse no teu post mais acima, havemos de continuar, no seu ponto mais determinante, esta conversa. Um abraço e obrigado.
Ah, obrigado pela clarificação! Não estou ao corrente da legislação portanto não tenho competência para comentar essa parte, nem ponho, por isso, em causa nada do que diz.
Não sou partidário de se eliminar o tal vínculo moral de que fala. No entanto, teria de pensar um pouco mais sobre que vínculo é esse, em toda a sua extensão. Sou, porém, claramente contra a desresponsabilização individual daqueles que casam, tanto nos destinos do próprio casal, como dos filhos, da família alargada, até mesmo da comunidade em que se encontram. A autonomia vem associada à liberdade, é certo, mas sem dúvida que também à responsabilidade. E esse é um ponto importante, já que o conceito de responsabilidade está em acelerada mutação na sociedade actual. Parece-me, mas posso estar enganado, que o Gonçalo fala apenas numa pressão exterior, um tanto ou quanto manipulativa, quando talvez exista uma pressão generalizada na sociedade, em jeito de vasos comunicantes, que exerce parte dessa força transformadora por de dentro. É apenas uma percepção com uma pitada de expeculação, sem quaisquer dados para a suportar, mas antes de a eliminar, gostaria de saber se existe ou não.
Tem toda a razão no que diz sobre a falência colectiva das ideologias nas novas gerações (e será que é apenas no Ocidente?). Não sei se é uma descrença nelas, ou uma falta de objecto no qual se pode crer. Quanto à indiferença, será que o assim o é, ou apenas uma mudança do foco dos interesses e dos valores?