Sequachee Valley news. (Sequachee [Sequatchie], Tenn.) 1896-1952, 1912-08-01
SOCIALISM AND
THE FAMILY

We have seen that the philosophy oi
socialism is materialism pure and sim
pie, and therefore is anti-Chlistian.
The quotations we have given from
prominent socialist sources show that
real socialists recognize this fact about
their philosophy and living up to II
are themselves for the most part anti
Christian in their attitude We turn
now to another consequence of the ma
terialisti. philosophy of socialism,
namely the attitude of socialism to-
wards that most sacred of all our
Christian institutions-th family.
But first let us see the way in which
Christianity regards the family.
shall be we'll within the bounds of or
thodox Christian teaching when / say
that Christianity looks upon the family
as having been directly ordained by
God and considers marriage not only
as a sacred, but also divine institu-
tion. Further the Christian religion
teaches that the present form of mar
riage, that is the union of one man
with one woman, lasting during the
life time of the parties is the highest
and most perfect form of marriage
the world has known OF can know.
Christianity, therefore, must look
with disfavor upon anything that
would interfere with the sacredness of
marriage or tend to destroy the per-
manence or the unity of the family; it
must necessarily be opposed to absol-
ute divorce which permits the parties
to remarry; to anything like bigamy,
polygamy, promiscuity in the relations
of the sexes or free love. Further it
holds that the children are the heaven
given property of the parents, and that
it is their sacred duty to care for and
educate them to the best of their abili-
ty.
With this christian view of marriage
and the family in mind let us now
consider the attitude of socialism to
this institution. First of all the social
ist philosophy says that the present
form of marriage and of the family is
not stable or permanent, is not div
inc institution or ordained by God but
is simply the product of our capitalis-
tic system of economics. 1t follows
then that we're this present economical
system revolutionized-whi it is the
object of socialism to accomplish-the
present form of marriage and of fami-
ly must give way to some new form.
Lest anyone should think that what
we have so far written has been made
up out of our imagination hasten to
show some of the sources of my in
formation in the following quotations.
The Communist Manifesto, " writ
ten by Marx and Engels, says: On
what foundation is the present family,
the bourgeoise family, based' On cap
ital, on private gain. The bourgeoise
family will vanish as matter of
course when its complement capital
vanishes. Here we have the plain
teaching by the founders of modern So
cialism that our present family res is
not upon divine decree, but simply
upon capital and that it will vanish
when capital is destroyed.
Frederick Engels in another work
developes this idea: "The monogamic
family he says $50 far from being a
divinely instituted union of souls, is
seen to be the product of series of
material and in the last analysis of
the most sordid motives. We are now
approaching social revolution in
which the old economic marriage foun-
dation of one man to one woman will
disappear. There can be no doubt
that there is an essential antagonists
between the views Of the family here
expressed and the view held by Christ
ianity If socialism controlled our
destinies. then our present form of
marriage and our present institution
of the family would be done away
with. What would the new form bet
Socialists themselves seem to be
rather hazy in their ideas. But the
following points may be gathered from
their Writings:
I. Marriage under socialism would
be entirely and simply private con-
tract between the man and the woman
God, church or state having nothing
to do with it.
g. 1t would not be permanent con-
tract, but would be bre&kable at the
will of either party and both would be
free to enter at once into new marital
relations with others.
3. There would be no divorce by
law, of course, because all the man or
woman would have to do would be
simply to declare the contract at an
end and go and make new contract
with somebody else.
A. There would be no such thing as
family life, as we now understand it,
because the husband and father would
have no more authority tt an the wife
and mother. Furthermore, both the
man and the woman would have to go
forth from the home to do the work
which the state appoints-the women
having equal rights must bear equal
in all things with the
men.
5. The children would be the prop
erty of and the, wards of the state-to
be taken from their parents at the ear
lest possible moment and cared for in
common nurseries and kindergartens.
Parents would have no say about their
education and nothing to do with it,
the state taking entire charge of that.
That the above characteristics of
and the family under social
ism once more are not the products of
my Imagination but are the teaching
of socialists themselves will bs seen in
the following quotations: From Com
rade E Bax: oIf it be asked is mar
riage failure. the answer of any i'm
partial person must be-mouogamic
is failure the rest is ST.
lence. We know not what the new
form of the family, the society of the
future, when men and women will be
alike economically free may evolve and
which may be generally adopted there