# Marriage through a Marxist lens



## amishrockstar

There are a few "Marxists" at the university that I'm at now. 

For someone who sees the world through economic glasses 
(everything is tied to economics/class in some way), what 
would you say to their assertion that marriage --at least in 
the past-- was primarily for economic reasons or gain?

I'd agree that people HAVE used marriage as a means for
economic advancement, but I have a hard time thinking 
that ALL civilizations (pagan as well as those that were 
Christian-dominated) have viewed marriage in that light.

Thanks for any insights,
Matthew


----------



## Casey

Relevant is the interview with Allan C. Carlson: http://www.marshillaudio.org/resources/volume_contents.asp?volumeID=93


----------



## Andres

tax breaks?


----------



## DeborahtheJudge

One argument for the *legal* institution of marriage is that it held men accountable to paying for their children (this argument can be found in Adam Smiths writings and prominently in Thomas Robert Malthus writings). Women do gain from marriage economically when children are involved. If the man isn't legally held accountable to his children, he can leave the woman with the child at no penalty. This holds especially true in our economy, where work is outsourced from the home (ie, family bonds are heavily based on emotional bonds, not economic bonds). 

I think that would be an argument against anyone who wanted to do away with the *legal* institution of marriage or trivialize it with other forms of marriage.


----------



## jwithnell

If you don't _start_ with God giving Eve to be a suitable helper to Adam, you can end up in all kinds of strange places. I can remember an anthropology class talking in terms of division of labor, etc. (which really isn't needed today). How romantic!


----------



## Puritan Sailor

amishrockstar said:


> There are a few "Marxists" at the university that I'm at now.
> 
> For someone who sees the world through economic glasses
> (everything is tied to economics/class in some way), what
> would you say to their assertion that marriage --at least in
> the past-- was primarily for economic reasons or gain?
> 
> I'd agree that people HAVE used marriage as a means for
> economic advancement, but I have a hard time thinking
> that ALL civilizations (pagan as well as those that were
> Christian-dominated) have viewed marriage in that light.
> 
> Thanks for any insights,
> Matthew


 
Rather than try to refute their interpretation of history you need to get down to the root of their objection. They reject the Bible and adopt man-made traditions instead to build their worldview. What makes Marx a more authoritative guide than God himself? Most likely it's because they value one sinful perk in that worldview which Christianity says they can't have. Find that out, and then you will see why they hold to Marxism. Then you can show them how Marxism actually destroys what they want...


----------



## ZackF

amishrockstar said:


> There are a few "Marxists" at the university that I'm at now.
> 
> For someone who sees the world through economic glasses
> (everything is tied to economics/class in some way), what
> would you say to their assertion that marriage --at least in
> the past-- was primarily for economic reasons or gain?
> 
> I'd agree that people HAVE used marriage as a means for
> economic advancement, but I have a hard time thinking
> that ALL civilizations (pagan as well as those that were
> Christian-dominated) have viewed marriage in that light.
> 
> 
> Thanks for any insights,
> Matthew


 

I don't have a problem with it. Economics is certainly _part_ of marriage. What is wrong with economic gain? Eve was to be a "help meet." What was she suppose to "help" him with?.....nothing? All other things being equal, a household with two people is more productive than one. Marx had a lot of problems but one of the largest, same as everyone else, was the absoluteness of one sector of human life in his thought. Marx was more obsessed with money and gain than most all capitalists.

BTW, an interesting side bad: Gary North has a most illuminating talk on the personal financial habits of Karl Marx. Marx blew through money like a kleenex.


----------

