Marxism in Romance.

Marxism in Romance.

One naive notion of Marxism is predicated upon the notion of “sharing”. The superstition is that to be a Marxist means to “share” every thing. Yet obviously to “share” food is different than to “share” a woman. One would not eat food that has all ready been digested, in a position of excess, and nor would one cut up a blonde into pieces so that each might enjoy a “piece of her ass”. If this is your view of altruism or paradise, then it is no wonder that Foucault defined INSANITY as the tendency to see disparate circumstances as being unified by signs, such as the word “share”.

Marxism is not inconsistent with monogamy or elitism. What it establishes is that Basic needs, those of Deficiency, are the same from person to person. Yet the capacity for a man to love a woman, for instance, varies from man to man, and depending upon the woman. In a Marxist society, the weak of heart are not compelled to compete with the strong of heart for resources. The love of a woman cannot be guaranteed, but she would do well to choose the stronger of the two candidates, for he will love her more, and so the weaker should know his place. Should the weaker one win he would never understand the affront to the stronger of the two, for he will not know the heart-ache of losing her. He will only exploit her for her resources as well as the more loving man. And this can only occur in a frame of mind and system that dismisses altruism, the full fillment of each other’s needs, as one’s central duty, and that pits these two parties against one another, to be decided by consumerystic whims. The victor in such a system, such a microcosm modeled after the macrocosm of consumer capitalism, would be the most unscrupulous, selfish, and inconsiderate, whose only advantage is a deliberately cultivated charm, a commodity, and the availability of “a good time”.

Why not rather have the weak of heart, the debaucher, have his needs met for a casual sex partner, without having to pretend to be a gentleman? Why not have the lover court his soul mate in peace, without interference, without needing to settle for the life style of a “player”? The former will never understand the latter, and the latter should never suffer on behalf of the former. Why miss-lead the woman by pretending towards the virtues of the other, so that she accuses the latter of the former’s vices because she refuses to believe she was miss-led, and so the genuinely caring is labeled the debaucher and the debaucher is labeled the gentleman? After all, she does not pretend that they are BOTH gentlemen, for even as she insists upon their equality she presumes upon the superiority of one just by the act of choice. All that matters is that she choose rightly, that she not be miss led, and that if she does fail to choose rightly, she is corrected civilly and politely. If she chooses rightly, the ful fillment of a Special Duty is made possible. If not, she becomes a resource to which the debaucher has a Special Privilege. To confuse Duty with Privilege can only be done when there is no interest paid to the virtues of the man, his Capacity for Caring, but only to the resource, which is delivered on a whim just like the victor in a game of rock paper scissors gets the first hit of weed. And the woman commodifies her self as a resource just by the act of choice, with her own consent, though admittedly innocently. The myth that both are EQUALLY entitled to the same resource, one that cannot be shared, but that to privilege the one over the other based upon chance, whim, and consumer preference is somehow sensible, can only occur in consumer capitalism.
The situation mirrors a group interview for a job that neither man wants, because it is too exhausting for the weaker of the two and too boring for the stronger of the two. Welcome to the middle class, right? Capitalism teaches us to assert the self over the Other, competing unscrupulously rather than seeking to civilly decide which world would meet both the Deficiency needs and the Excess needs of all. Marxism does not do that.

Dm.A.A.