Love and Marx

Sailee Lopes

SYBA

Alexandra Kollontai, a Bolshevik revolutionary and Marxist theoretician, regarded love as a historical construct. In her text, ‘Make Way for the Winged Eros’, Kollontai states, "In all stages of historical development, society has established norms defining when and under what conditions love is ‘legal’ and when and under what conditions love is ‘sinful and criminal’ ” (Kollontai, 1923). In a historical context, love has been used as a tool to organise and reorganise the working class in society to the whims and needs of the bourgeoisie. The ruling elite has always used love to their advantage. Kollontai further notes that capitalism invented modern love in the form of marriage. This was done because the proletariat could no longer serve under the bourgeoisie while surviving solely on economic ties and materialism. The grand and novel concept of love was propagated to control the proletariat. The idea of love is directly linked to the idea of family. A family, as a social institution, constitutes a superstructure. This means "love" is classified under superstructure.

According to Marxist theory, the superstructure includes all of society's social institutions. These include but are not limited to our judiciary system, state, politics, law, religion, media, education, culture, etc. And the base is the mode of production. It is how we sustain our society. The mode of production is further classified into ‘productive forces’ and ‘relations of production’. Productive forces are an amalgamation of the means of labour and the forces of labour. And relations of production are basically the relations between the capitalists or bourgeoisie, that is, the owners, and the proletariat, which is made up of the labourers. According to Karl Marx, base is everything material. It is the production of materialism in society and the different means of production attached to it. The literal foundation of society was the base. It was the foothold on which the other components of society were built.

However different these two concepts may seem; it is important to note the relationship between these two.  Society is dependent on the base and the superstructure and one can’t function without the other. My understanding of this structure in society is similar to my understanding of the human body. The superstructure is the head that holds the brain, arguably the most important part of the body. And the rest of the body is the base. As per the functioning of the human body, the brain is responsible for controlling all the bodily actions. This is how the superstructure works too. It controls all the actions, directly or indirectly. And the rest of the body parts, including the hands and the legs, perform the actions. The hands and the legs, hence, are the forces of labour and the means of production. This makes the spinal cord and the nervous system the relations of production, as they are the conductors of the forces of labour, i.e., the limbs. The brain is the superstructure because it is concerned with our behaviour, our actions, our morals, and thoughts, just like the superstructures in society are. Here, to understand the relationship between the base and the superstructure, it is important to note that one can’t exist without the other. The brain can’t control actions if there are no limbs, and the limbs can’t function properly without the brain. This necessarily means that the base and superstructure are symbiotic. The base gives authority and rise to the superstructure, and in turn, the superstructure reinforces the brain.

But interestingly, the heart, although the lifeline of the human body, is hard to place in this pseudo-structural body. The heart pumps blood to the entire body, which would place it in the base. The heart in modern society, apart from its importance to the human body, has been closely associated with the idea of love. Hence, here, it can be said that the heart, ergo, love, can be placed in the base.

To explain it further, red roses are universally recognised as the symbol of love and romance. Red roses are a staple for romantic occasions, and the market and demand for red roses on Valentine’s Day is colossal. This is also an example of how love is commercialised. But originally, the roses were never supposed to be red. They were white in colour. The story of how the roses turned red lies in Greek mythology. Aphrodite, the Goddess of Love, fell in love with a mere mortal. A hunter named Adonis and Zeus, the God of Lightning, as a prank, had Adonis gored by a wild boar. Aphrodite pricked herself on a rose thorn when she raced to save Adonis, turning the roses red, drenched in her blood. The roses are red because they are dripping in the grief of Aphrodite’s lost love.

Love has a very abstract and romantic notion. It is as far from materialism as it could be. Love, in a practical sense, is of no use. As it does not contribute productively by any means to society, Yet, love is a sociological concept as it is interwoven with many social institutions, such as family, culture, and religion. This puts the concept of love within the superstructure. Yet, love, indirectly, can also be categorised as base. The term "labour of love" also, to some extent, makes it a part of the labour forces. The best example is the ‘housewife’. Labour of love roughly translates to any task done without reward, for pleasure. And the housewife, who is an ‘unpaid labourer’ under the notion of labour of love, works every day but without any pay or appreciation but is indirectly a part of the labour force in society that generates material wealth. Because, if she doesn’t maintain her home, then her husband can’t go out into society and be a part of the "labour force".

To look at it from a particularly modern angle, love sells. Love becomes a means of generating material wealth through various mediums. Love also generates a lot of capital in our society and can be viewed as a commodity. The red roses on Valentine's Day, a symbol of love, also symbolise the market and economy. Love through media, which is considered a superstructure, is a means of production, which is a base. The idea of love feeds directly into the mouths of capitalism when love is sold as a commodity to the masses. Various dating apps like Tinder and Bumble, use the idea of love as the foundation of their company. And these companies generate a huge revenue too. Love is of different natures and does not specifically end in romantic, platonic, or familial love. For example, the love for one’s country, that is patriotism, becomes a tool of production in the hands of capitalism. For the protection of one’s beloved nation, the military becomes a necessity. Arms and ammunition for the military are a billion-dollar business in the world. The sale of military gadgets creates a lot of material wealth. Also, the soldiers in the military become part of the labour force. Here, the concept of love creates branches of production and material generation in the Base. In Das Kapital, Marx writes that family was merely a financial relationship among the bourgeoisie. In the hands of capitalism, love is merely a tool. This makes love a means to produce labour, because throughout history, the concept of love has been a manipulation tool.

"Love first really teaches a man to believe in the objective world outside himself. It not only makes man the object but the object a man. Love makes the beloved into an external object, a sensuous object which does not remain internal, hidden in the brain." (Marx, 1845). Interestingly enough, Karl Marx, although ruthlessly cynical in his writings and views, was a romantic in a very traditional sense. Karl Marx looks at love as a separation of man from machine. He married his childhood sweetheart, Jenny von Westphalen, with whom he shared love letters through their courtship and they had seven children together. Another aspect of Karl Marx’s life is his struggle with poverty. Karl Marx was, at times, funded by Engels in dire circumstances and struggled with poverty his entire life. He and his wife Jenny’s love and subsequent marriage resulted in the reproduction of seven children. And as Engels states in the preface of his book, The Origin of Family,

 

The determining factor in history is, in the final instance, the production and reproduction of the immediate essentials of life. This, again, is of a twofold character. On the one hand, the production of the means of existence, of articles of food and clothing, dwellings, and the tools necessary for that production; on the other hand, the production of human beings themselves, the propagation of the species. The social organisation under which the people of a particular historical epoch and a particular country live is determined by both kinds of production: by the stage of development of labour on the one hand and of the family on the other (Engels, 1884).

 

This can be likened to Marx’s own life as the reproduction, that is, his children, a symbol of love between his wife and him, were systematically a means of production for society. Hence, love can be categorised under base as love leads to the generation of capital and modes of production. Love among the proletariat makes sure that through reproducing, the proletariat is providing the society with the labour force. This means, love is indirectly resourcing the means of production.

 

References

Cozzarelli, T. (2022, September 9). Love and Socialism. Left Voice. Retrieved September 15, 2022, from https://www.leftvoice.org/love-and-socialism/

Engels, F. Origins of the Family— Preface (1884). (n.d.). Retrieved September 14, 2022, from https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/preface.htm

Karl Marx on Love and Marriage. (n.d.). Retrieved September 14, 2022, from https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/love-marriage/index.htm