Alexandra Kollantai

Sadly, her work didn't exactly have a great impact on the Soviet Union, but she was awesome nevertheless! I'm a huge fan of Kollantai and saw that there wasen't already a thread on her, so I figured I'd make one. What are your thoughts and ideas about her and her work?

I'm quite sympathetic to her ideal of free love. Apart from that, I don't really know much about her. Care to enlighten us?

I think she is an important radical feminist thinker whose practical and theoretical contributions have been positive for the communist movement. She's definitely been misinterpreted when it comes to her discussions of 'free love', although her conception on the backwardness of the family is a bit troubling. The ideas of the Zhenotdel, which included the creation of social institutions that might free women from 'domestic slavery' are highly interesting, and it's unfortunate that due to the Civil War and the lack of resources, the ideas were never implemented to the extent that they should have. While her ideas were soon sidelined in the Stalin period, which was more socially conservative*, they definitely have their place in the modern communist movement. It's important to note though that accepting some ideas (ex. the creation of an extensive network of cafeterias, laundry services, childcare facilities, etc.) does not necessitate accepting all of them. I still think the conception of the family withering away is too radical, even for communists.

I especially appreciate Kollontai's anti-bourgeois feminist line. Feminism by itself, like other identity politics associations, is not necessarily aligned to greater progressive objectives, and thus has the potential to be reactionary. Historically it often was, with bourgeois feminist organizations across Europe and North America supporting the First World War and socially conservative politics. There is a crucial need for radical identity politics to exist within the context of the broader class struggle, not outside of it, and Kollontai is a figure who as far as I'm aware promoted such a conception.

*not just in the Soviet Union but in labour and communist movements worldwide

It's been ages since I read her, and both times were for a world history class and political science 101. If I recall, she was critical of contemporary feminist movements because as products of bourgeois society, they were nevertheless upholding a lot of bourgeois values, that they would only soften the effects of gender oppression but not fully fight it, and that because it was largely led by upper- and middle-class women, the movement was nevertheless condescending toward working-class women. Another criticism was that bourgeois feminism was still promoting the nuclear family ideal that was a part of the capitalist social order.

She advocated a communal family unit, as opposed to the nuclear family unit comprising of monogamous husband and wife and their kids, which she was very much in favor of abandoning. This went hand in hand with her advocacy of free love, views against the institution of marriage, and of developing new views on sexuality.

Needless to say, she was quite unpopular, with one classmate (an Air Force ROTC guy) in my history class denouncing her writings with the label of "propaganda" (HURR DURR ), a Vietnamese girl in my polsci class saying that her views along with those held by socialists in general were absurd (human nature guise ), and even one of the TA's for the polsci class (not the one for my discussion section) called Kollontai a "crazy communist bitch" ( jokingly, but even as a joke, it was very uncalled for) during a review section. Haters gonna hate, and they can go frag themselves. I'm a fan, personally.

Was she a prohibitionist by any chance?
I've only read one or two short pieces by her but there's a stack of them on M.I.A..
She must have been one of the only prominent members of the Worker's Opposition who made it through the purges. I read one book which suggested that Stalin was a little old-fashioned when it came to women, so he didn't persecute them as relentlessly as their male colleagues.
I guess she raises an interesting question about the order in which equalities should be pursued.

Stalin was quite prudish and was both shocked and amused by Kollantai's ideals. I think that free-love, open-minded bohemianism and social acceptence are absolutely necessary for a communist society, which is why I disagree with alot of the ideals of the Soviet leaders after Lenin.

I find it quite fascinating and funny that the west was still cautious towards gay rights, black rights, the mentally ill etc... as late as the 70s, when Leninist Russia had completely liberated basically every kind of person in 1917. I mentioned that in my Christian Studies exam, I got a D

Gulag wrote:

I find it quite fascinating and funny that the west was still cautious towards homosexual rights, black rights, the mentally ill etc... as late as the 70s, when Leninist Russia had completely liberated basically every kind of person in 1917. I mentioned that in my Christian Studies exam, I got a D

Why'd you get a "D"? Unless it was totally out of context and you just threw it in there, I don't really see it being worthy of a bad grade, save for reasons of bias and prejudice.

LOL It was kinda out of context (or so I was told), because we had to write an essay on the bible's veiws on women's rights (something like that) I thought I'd compare Kollantai's ideals to Christian ones. But I did pretty shitty on the whole exam, since we had to include bible verses and I don't own a bible.

The Bible's view of women can be pretty much summed up as: servants of Satan and tempters of men. Why else would a bunch of jealous, no-sex-gettin' "apostles" cover up his relationship with Mary Magdalene?

I've read her memoirs. Good stuff. She writes pretty well; it was very engaging, even if it was highly selective and included near-zero of her post-revolution activities.

I haven't read her feminist writings, but I agree with her views expressed on her memoirs.

Worker's Opposition? Not a clue. It sounded OK, but without context, it's bound to do so.

Free love.....yes please

I remember reading about an article in some book called "Sexual Restraint: Good for capitalists, bad for communists". As awesome as the title was, I can't remember exactly if it was her who wrote it or not.

She would have been a kickass General Secretary.

Free love, not trade!

Quote:

Free love, not trade!

Marry me.

This is an excellent article about the sexual liberation in Russia after the Revolution. History to me, seems to have been more than just a class struggle, but a struggle between different kinds of people in general, be it class, race, sex, orientation, beliefs, etc.

Mabool wrote:

Marry me.

Hehe

Iron Felix wrote:

Free love.....yes please

Lol, is that sarcasm?

Madame Kollontai wrote:

In the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat relations between the sexes should be evaluated only according to the following criteria - the health of the working population and the development of inner bonds of solidarity within collective. The sexual act must not be seen as something shameful or sinful, but as something which is as natural as the other needs of (a) healthy organism, such as hunger and thirst. Such phenomena cannot be judged as moral or immoral. The satisfaction of healthy and natural instincts only ceases to be normal when the boundaries of hygiene are overstepped. In such cases, not only the health of the person concerned but the interests of the work collective, which needs the strength and energy and health of its members, are threatened.

Communist morality, therefore, while openly recognising the normality of sexual interests, condemns unhealthy and unnatural interests in sex (excesses, for example, or sexual relations before maturity has been reached, which exhaust the organism and lower the capacity of men and women for work).

As communist morality is concerned for the health of the population, it also criticises sexual restraint. The preservation of health includes the full and correct satisfaction of all man’s needs; norms of hygiene should work to this end, and not artificially suppress such an important function of the organism as the sex drive. Thus both early sexual experience (before the body has developed and grown strong) and sexual restraint must be seen as equally harmful.

Based upon what I know of her, which isn't very much, I must admit, I must say that I support her ideas on sexuality and the institutions of traditional marriage and family structure. However I have my doubts regarding the feasibility of the idea of the complete disappearing of the family unit itself under Communism and the total replacement of family life by the society in general. I do agree that the society and the Communist cause are more important than family ties, but I don't think that the family as such will disappear.

Wakizashi the Bolshevik wrote:

However I have my doubts regarding the feasibility of the idea of the complete disappearing of the family unit itself under Communism and the total replacement of family life by the society in general.

I actually agree, I think most parents would prefer their children in their own hands, rather than society's, and raise them as they please. Only in situations involving things like domestic abuse, could this idea be useful.

Well, in some ways, society already does a lot to raise children for parents. Simply consider, for instance, the effects of education system with schools away from home, the use of babysitters, the influence of mass media and mass culture, and so on. The problem is that under the current system, bourgeois interests and ideas—nationalism, free-market consumerism, inequality—are dominant and are pumped into children every day. Even if progressive ideas are channeled through, it is always within the framework of the current bourgeois norms, which contribute to attitude shifts between generations (though I am not saying this is the only way that it is done), but still co-opts social change into the arena of the liberal bourgeois tendency.

I haven't read enough to know all about Kollontai's ideas, and among what I did read, some did strike me as perhaps not the most practical. Nevertheless, it seems like social family raising can be implemented to a certain degree, even if the abolition of the family unit is not likely to be feasible in the short term, or perhaps even the long term, as humans tend to develop emotional ties between family members. Still, I can't say I am entirely against the idea of abolishing the concept of the "family" as it exists now, which is what she wrote about. Society tells us what an ideal, healthy family under capitalism should be like, but neither that family nor capitalism can be considered to be healthy.

Why is the traditional family unhealthy? In my honest opinion capitalism has already abolished the family. When the son or daughter arrives home they go to their room, play or troll on the internet and hide everything from their parents. Many families do not even eat together anymore. Then you have youth on the streets so estranged from their parents and often themselves that they are almost lost. If anything we need stronger families.

The traditional family is patriarchal, and founded on bourgeois values of excessive focus on individualism and the private sphere (not saying that privacy shouldn't exist, of course). Such values lead to behaviors and ideas that, on the whole, cause people to become more withdrawn not simply from society but from each other, which in turn has a detrimental effect on society. Furthermore, the cultural norms on the dichotomy of public vs private did lead to also ideas that women should not work, should not participate in politics, and so on. These same cultural norms on what a family should be like (which incidentally fit into our ideas of what a traditional family is) have also been used by the middle-class to look down on workers and their families, since working families typically The traditional family structure in bourgeois and pre-capitalist societies essentially are a reflection of inequalities and ills within society, which have unfortunately become considered "normal."

What we are seeing happening with the "family" unit and the "breakdown" thereof can very much be attributed to capitalism which produced the notions of a "traditional family" as we understand it now in the first place, because of its focus on the private and the individual. The same bourgeois values that created the notion of a patriarchal, nuclear family has ironically enough never been able to sustain such a creation, and a truly well-functioning "traditional" family has never truly existed anywhere, outside of perhaps bourgeois imagination.

Capitalist society is all very ironic and filled with contradictions.