N.N.KOZLOVA

End of introductory segment.

Statues for Mohammed Ali

Cinema, books and boxing

Literature and cinema are another "trick" of the Klitschko brothers at the beginning of the new century. Vitali Klitschko, for example, showed himself as an actor-reciter. On March 7, 2001, a literary evening dedicated to the memory of Mikhail Bulgakov took place in Hamburg. The well-known German actress Iris Berben and Vitali Klitschko performed excerpts from the writer's most famous novel, The Master and Margarita. Literary readings were held in German. “In preparation for this evening, I did not use the services of a director or a professional actor. I read the Master and Margarita novel when I was still a teenager, and since that time I have often reread it, discovering something new in Mikhail Bulgakov’s work each time,” Vitaly later said. – When Iris suggested me the idea of ​​this literary reading, and one of my favorite books, I agreed without hesitation. I am glad that a lot of my friends, admirers of Mikhail Bulgakov's work, have gathered in the hall. In addition to being creative, the action was also of a charitable nature. All funds received from the sale of tickets for this evening were donated to the restoration of the convent of the Archangel Michael, which is located in Odessa.

Text provided by LitRes LLC.

Read this book in its entirety by purchasing the full legal version on LitRes.

The cost of the full version of the book is 29.95 rubles. (as of March 30, 2014).

You can safely pay for the book with a Visa, MasterCard, Maestro bank card, from a mobile phone account, from a payment terminal, in an MTS or Svyaznoy salon, via PayPal, WebMoney, Yandex.Money, QIWI Wallet, bonus cards or in another way convenient for you.

“The majestic and mournful problem of motherhood, weighed down under the burden of its own burden, invariably walks with a tired tread”).

(A.Kollontai “Society and motherhood”)

The creative heritage of Kollontai attracts modern researchers by posing a number of issues that are important for the functioning of society. As a rule, scientists who have studied the works of this famous revolutionary compare her ideas with the views of contemporary feminists, ideologists and politicians, doctors and hygienists, and reveal the relevance of her ideas at the present time. I think it is important to analyze the basic principles of her work on motherhood.

The topic of motherhood was regularly touched upon by A. Kollontai in speeches and articles, but the main factor that prompted her to carefully study this issue was the development of a draft law in the field of maternity protection entrusted to her by the Social Democratic faction of the Russian State Duma. During the work on the project, she summarized the experience of England, France and the Scandinavian countries in a 600-page book “Society and Motherhood”. Later, in 1917, the conclusions made by Kollontai at the end of the book, and the paramount legislative norms in this area proposed there, were implemented by the Soviet government in the first law on social protection.

The combination of theoretical work and practical activity is seen as the uniqueness of A. Kollontai's projects. Occupying the post of commissar of state charity in the Soviet government, she had the opportunity to implement her ideas in real life. V. Bryson lists the following merits of A. Kollontai in this post: “She sought to provide women with full legal independence and equality in marriage, legalize abortion, eliminate the concept of “illegal birth” as a legal category and establish the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal value. It also laid the legal foundation for the state provision of maternal and child health and ensured that the leadership began to focus on the principles of collective housekeeping, raising children and establishing food institutions (the party abandoned these promises in the early 20s). Although the lack of resources often meant that such decrees could be a statement of intent, they proved to be rather non-trivial achievements, given the current chaos and other demands placed on the new government”[i]. As we can see, in V. Bryson's assessment, motherhood is one of the fundamental concepts of A. Kollontai's theoretical capital and priority areas of policy of the ministry she leads. A full-scale project for women's emancipation would be incomplete if the problem of motherhood had not been considered by her. The motherhood of the “new woman” in Soviet Russia was considered by her in many aspects: economic (a working mother, creating both a material and a demographic resource), political (equal civil rights, equal family rights and obligations), sociocultural (the concept of a “new woman”, emancipated citizen of the new society, the new ethics of motherhood - the mother becomes such for all the children of the proletarian republic).

Showing the relationship of motherhood with all spheres of society, A. Kollontai thus substantiates its social significance. The relevance of the problem of motherhood declared by Kollontai could not be questioned by contemporary politicians, since the argumentation of the theses, built on an understanding of the national interests of the country, was literally “deadly”. Infant mortality in most of the cultural countries of Europe at that time exceeded the losses of these states during the most unsuccessful wars. She directly associated the decline in demographic resources with the thinning of the ranks of national producers, a decrease in tax payers, and a reduction in the number of consumers on the domestic market. All these consequences in the aggregate delayed the further development of the economy, and posed a direct threat to those in power and the weakening of their military might.

How does Alexandra Kollontai articulate the problem of motherhood? Adhering to the class interpretation of social processes, A. Kollontai limits the problem area of ​​motherhood to the interests working women with children. In her work “Society and Motherhood”, she formulates this problem as follows: “The insecurity of millions of mothers and the lack of care for babies on the part of society create all the acuteness of the modern conflict about the incompatibility of the professional work of a woman and motherhood, the conflict underlying the entire maternal problem. The worker groans under the family yoke, she languishes under the weight of triple duties: professional worker, housewife and mother. However, A. Kollontai cannot be blamed for the narrowing of the social base of motherhood. If in 1917 the “working mother” contract extended mainly to proletarian women, then in the subsequent years of Soviet history it became dominant. The total attraction of women to work involved all the women of socialist society in this conflict. The problem of combining professional work and maternal duty as a legacy of the Soviet era is still being discussed by public and scientific circles. Modern Russian sociologist A.I. Kravchenko writes: “To the traditional economic status of a woman to be a housewife, the industrial era added one more - to be a worker. However, the old and new status came into conflict with each other. After all, it is impossible to equally effectively and almost simultaneously perform both roles. Each required a lot of time and considerable skill. And yet they managed to combine. It is much more difficult to combine the status-roles of a good mother and an efficient worker, as well as a good wife and an efficient worker. A tired woman is far from the best sexual partner. And the time needed for production is taken away by the upbringing of children. Thus, the new status of “worker” came into conflict with the three old ones: housewife, mother, wife” (p. 97-98). Unfortunately, AI Kravchenko only articulates a known contradiction, but does not offer any recipes for its removal. Whereas, according to A. Kollontai, there are two ways to resolve this conflict: either return the woman to the house, forbidding her any participation in the national economic life; or achieve the implementation of such social events that would enable a woman, without abandoning her professional duties, to still fulfill her natural purpose. Such a solution to the problem of motherhood was proposed for the first time. T. Osipovich emphasizes the importance of the idea of ​​A. Kollontai: “Her predecessors, as a rule, declared the incompatibility of women's work and motherhood. Kollontai believes that such a combination is possible and necessary”[v]. It is necessary, since labor is the economic basis for women's emancipation, perhaps due to a change in two social institutions, which, as A. Kollontai points out, determine the past and future of motherhood - the economic system and the institution of marriage and family.

Kollontai considers a radical transformation of the economy, supplemented by the so-called “revolution of everyday life”, the most important condition for overcoming the economic and political alienation of women, as an obligatory prerequisite for removing the contemporary problem of motherhood. In the work of the same name, A. Kollontai states that the transformation of everyday life is associated with a radical restructuring of all production on the new principles of the communist economy. The emancipation of women becomes possible thanks to public catering establishments and dairy kitchens, the system of preschool and school institutions, and a developed network of bath and laundry enterprises. Looking ahead, we note here that the implementation of these measures was directly related to the economic resources of the state, so we could not talk about their large-scale implementation in the 20-30s. W. Reich, who visited Soviet Russia at that time, welcomed the system of preschool education with sincere enthusiasm, noting its clear organization on collective principles. However, as local archives testify, the arrangement of dairy kitchens, children's hearths and shelters gave rise to many problems (stealing of cooks and caretakers, violence of educators, etc.) and required careful control by the women's departments.

The problem of motherhood has a direct outlet to marriage and family ties and is largely determined by them. As Kollontai believed, the family should also be transformed in the era of the dictatorship of the proletariat. We have already taken a brief summary of Kollontai's views on the family in our works. However, to understand the concept of motherhood, it is necessary to turn again. The external bonds of the family that go beyond its economic tasks, this is the economic dependence of a woman on a man and concern for the younger generation, according to the ideologist of socialist egalitarianism, are weakened and die off as the principles of communism are established in the labor republic. The labor of women, with the introduction of universal labor service, inevitably acquired an independent value in the national economy, independent of her marital and marital status. The family has evolved into a free union of a woman and a man based on love. The upbringing of children was gradually taken over by the state. “No less burden, chaining her to the house, enslaving in the family, was the care of children and their upbringing. With its communist policy in the field of motherhood and social education, the Soviet government decisively removes this burden from the woman, shifting it to the social collective, to the labor state. This was the highlight of the solution to the problem of motherhood A. Kollontai. Plato's views on the benefits of collective public education of children were used by her for the benefit of mothers. In my opinion, the key to understanding the problem of motherhood by a well-known revolutionary lies precisely in the social plane, the protection of motherhood and childhood by the state. It seemed that something new could be added to the reproductive scheme and the traditional gender system based on it? Society and motherhood, or rather the state and motherhood - such new ideas are put forward and begin to be implemented by the Minister of Social Charity.

“The main trend of all this work was the actual realization of the equality of women as a unit of the national economy and as a citizen in the political sphere, in addition, with a special condition: motherhood as a social function should be valued and therefore protected and supported by the state”, “Society should “remove from mothers cross motherhood and leave only a smile of joy that gives rise to communication between a woman and her child - this is the principle of Soviet power in resolving the problem of motherhood”, “Society is obliged in all forms and types to place “rescue stations” on the way of a woman in order to support her morally and financially in the most crucial period of her life,” writes Kollontai in the works “Soviet woman is a full-fledged citizen of her country”, “Life Revolution”, “Love and Morality”. However, the conclusions that A. Kollontai draws from this, in an unexpected way, cross out the views accepted at that moment on the social functions of motherhood. If, as A. Kollontai states, the problem of motherhood is a socially significant problem, on which the state of the labor and military resources of the state depends, then motherhood should be imputed to the duties of women. Here we are talking, in fact, about the creation of a system of “state patriarchy”. The state obliges a woman to give birth in the interests of the labor republic to ensure a continuous influx of fresh workers in the future. “Soviet Russia approached the issue of ensuring motherhood from the point of view of the main task of the labor republic: the development of the country's productive forces, the rise and restoration of production. ... to free the largest possible number of labor forces from unproductive labor, to skillfully use all the availability of labor for the purposes of economic reproduction; secondly, to provide the labor republic with a continuous influx of fresh workers in the future ... The labor republic approaches women, first of all, as a labor force, a unit of living labor; she considers the function of motherhood as a very important, but additional task, moreover, not a private family task, but also a social one. Kollontai links the interests of the state very closely with the interests of women, giving the latter a secondary importance. Motherhood is subject to protection and provision not only in the interests of the woman herself, but even more so based on the tasks of the national economy during the transition to the labor system, she believes.

It is hard to imagine that these lines were written by the freedom-loving, emancipated Kollontai. Moreover, the discursive features of Kollontai's works, her constant references to the "interests of the state" are consonant with similar settings in the policy statements of the ideologists of Nazi Germany. The totalitarian doctrine involves the use of the female body, the reproductive capabilities of women to create labor, military units. Moreover, the emphasis in both concepts was placed on the reproduction of healthy and viable offspring. To do this, according to Kollontai, the labor society must put a pregnant woman in the most favorable conditions.

For her part, a woman also “should observe all hygiene regulations during pregnancy, remembering that during these months she ceases to belong to herself - she is in the service of the team - she “produces” from her own flesh and blood a new unit of labor, a new member of the labor republic” . We find the same reasoning in “Kein Kampf”: “Our state will declare the child the most valuable asset of the people. It will make sure that only healthy people produce offspring. ... The state will ensure that healthy women give birth to children, without limiting themselves in this respect - under the influence of a miserable economic situation. … The state will convince citizens that it will be much more noble if adults innocent of their illness refuse to have their own children and give their love and care to healthy but poor children of their country, who then grow up and form the backbone of society… Our ideal of a man is the personification courageous strength, our ideal of a woman is that she should be able to give birth to us a new generation of healthy men. So now we need to work on educating our sisters and mothers so that they give birth to healthy children.” Common points for the two concepts is also the performance of the functions of motherhood not only in relation to their children. A. Kollontai writes: “The slogan thrown to the broad female masses by the labor republic: “Be a mother and not only for your child, but for all the children of workers and peasants” should teach working women in a new way approach motherhood. Is it permissible, for example, for a mother, often even a communist, to refuse her breast to someone else's baby, who is languishing for lack of milk just because it is not her child?

In the analysis of Kollontai's works, V. Bryson somewhat softens the moment of etatization of motherhood. She writes: “Kollontai, however, did not argue that such duties should be imposed on women in an unequal, totalitarian or selfish society. She believed that they would arise naturally from the noble social relations that would characterize a mature communist society. In this context, the idea that having children is not only a right, but also a duty, takes on a completely different meaning. In the conditions prevailing in Russia at that time, women could not be expected to consider motherhood not as a personal burden, but as a social obligation, and therefore, in 1917, Kollontai supported the legalization of abortion”[x]. In turn, I can assume that the obligation of women to give birth to healthy children for the state is part of her large-scale project for the emancipation of women, freeing them from the oppression of men. In conditions of sexual freedom, the absence of a family, the state, and not men, helps women raise children. A. Kollontai tried to combine two points in her concept: the freedom of a woman, embodied in the right to choose a partner, desire and decision to have children, on the one hand, and material and cultural-symbolic (mother-heroine ...) assistance from the state, ensuring women's freedom , but under the conditions of compulsory birth of children for the state.

For the practical implementation of the developed concept of reforms, A. Kollontai outlines the step-by-step steps of the state in the field of maternity protection. The first step meant that every worker was guaranteed the opportunity to give birth to a child in a healthy environment, to feed and care for him in the first weeks of his life. The second step can be conditionally called institutional, since we are talking about the organization of nurseries, dairy kitchens, medical consultations for mothers and babies. The third step was to change the legal basis of social legislation for current and future mothers: a short working day, a ban on harmful and hard work. And, finally, the fourth and final step, ensures the economic independence of mothers during the period of childcare through the payment of cash benefits.

As a result of the gender policy planned by Kollontai, the state assumes the functions of a man, thus concluding a quasi-family union between a woman and the state. Marriage law, first of all, regulates the attitude of the state to motherhood and the attitude of the mother to the child and to the labor collective (protection of women's labor), the provision of pregnant and lactating women, the provision of children and their social education, the establishment of relationships between the mother and the socially brought up child. The right of paternity, as Kollontai conceived, should be established not through marriage, but directly by regulating the relationship of the father to the child (not of a material nature) with the voluntary recognition of paternity (the right of the father, on an equal basis with the mother, to choose a social system of education for the child, the right of spiritual communication with the child and influence on him, because it does not go to the detriment of the team, etc.).

What kind of father the Soviet state turned out to be judged by Soviet women. To me, who grew up at the end of the socialist era, it seems that not very good. The entire sphere of social reproduction fell on women's shoulders. The feminization of industries related to birth, care, ensuring a healthy lifestyle, upbringing, education, and creative development of children was evident in the USSR. The same can be said about the services of everyday life, supposedly freeing women from domestic work. The state did not appreciate the work of reproducing human life (however, it did not appreciate / appreciate human life itself). If in the 20s in the conditions of the restoration of the economy of the USSR, it was difficult to demand from the state full-fledged material support for motherhood, then in the 60s. - naturally. Here it was primarily about the priorities of state policy. The fact that at that time the society experienced problems with pre-school, school institutions and household enterprises, having a solid economic base, does not speak in favor of the maternity welfare strategy. The deprivation of paternity and weak assistance from the state gave rise to the “grandmother's institution”, and also formed a circle of people who help take care of children (neighbors, acquaintances, janitors ...).

Summing up the abstract review of the problem of motherhood by A. Kolllontai, we can say that the concept of motherhood developed by her was holistic, thoughtful, phased, avant-garde and partly utopian. The utopianism of her views was expressed, first of all, in giving moral factors more importance than legal ones and underestimating the conservatism of ordinary mass consciousness. Her merit lies in the fact that she substantiated the social significance of motherhood, showed the relationship with other spheres of society and with social institutions. Kollontai offered her solution to an extremely complex reproductive policy. We cannot ignore the fact that A. Kollontai's ideas of public/state regulation of the private-family sphere and the social content of the concept of "motherhood" anticipated the discussion between the social movements "for life" and "for choice".

Undoubtedly, Kollontai's ideas were used by Soviet ideologists. Her thesis about the obligation of women to give birth was taken as the basis of the demographic policy in the USSR, and in particular, served as the rationale for the Law on the Prohibition of Abortions in 1936. Neither the sexual nor the family concept of Kollontai were implemented in the Soviet era, but the coercive nature of social roles, and in this case, the slogan "women-workers, housewives-mothers" covered the entire sphere of female existence in a totalitarian system. The rigid niche of motherhood turned out for women to entrust them with all the cares of the family unilaterally, which in no way could indicate their emancipation. I also dare to express a hypothesis that requires special analysis, that thanks to Kollontai, the articulation of the problem of motherhood at the state level replaced sexual discourse, and also created the image of a hypertrophied, phallic, archetypal mother - the Motherland, who raised her children and therefore has the right to dispose of their lives, and belittled the status of a real woman mother who received, at best, a miserable monetary compensation for the loss of her children.

The concept of motherhood by A. Kollontai existed as a state policy in the Soviet period of our history and underlies modern Russian mass views on the role of mother in society. The gender contract of a working mother still determines the social roles and lifestyle of a woman. The Labor Code of the Russian Federation is the main document that regulates the rights and obligations of the mother. In it, as in the work of A. Kollontai “Society and Motherhood”, “maternity protection, the establishment of mandatory rest for pregnant women before and after childbirth with the receipt of state insurance benefits” are noted; free medical and obstetric care during the birth period; liberation of breastfeeding children”. However, the modern Russian father state has inherited all the shortcomings of its predecessor.

The most important consequence of Kollontai’s work in this direction, in my opinion, was the rise of this problem of motherhood to an unprecedented height, but at the same time, the actual implementation of Kollontai’s concept of motherhood turned into a “verbal rattle”. Modern society is also far from being able to “remove the cross of motherhood from mothers and leave only a smile of joy that gives rise to the communication of a woman with her child.”

NOTES

[i] Bryson W. The political theory of feminism. Translation: T. Lipovskoy. Under the general editorship of T. Gurko. M.: Idea-Press, S.139-151.

Kollontai A. Society and motherhood. Selected articles and speeches. M., 1972. S.160-175.

Kravchenko A.I. Sociology. Textbook for high school students. Ekaterinburg, 1998. S. 97-98.

[v] Osipovich T. Communism, feminism, women's liberation and Alexandra Kollontai Social sciences and modernity. 1993. No. 1. pp.174-186.

Reich V. Sexual revolution. St. Petersburg; M., 1997. S.258-259.

Uspenskaya V.I., Kozlova N.N. Family in the concept of Marxist feminism // Family in Russia: theory and reality. Tver, 1999. S. 87-88.

Kollontai A. Revolution of life. Woman's Labor in the Evolution of the Economy: Lectures delivered at Ya.M. Sverdlov. M.; Pg., 1923. Published in: The Art of Cinema. 1991. No. 6. P.105-109.

Hitler A. Mein Kampf. M., 1993. S.338. P.343. p.342..

[x] Bryson W. The political theory of feminism. Translation: T. Lipovskoy. Under the general editorship of T. Gurko. M.: Idea-Press, S.139-151.

[x] Kollontai A. Society and motherhood. Selected articles and speeches. M., 1972. S.160-175.

[x] Kravchenko A.I. Sociology. Textbook for high school students. Ekaterinburg, 1998. S. 97-98.

[x] Osipovich T. Communism, feminism, women's liberation and Alexandra Kollontai Social sciences and modernity. 1993. No. 1. pp.174-186.

[x] Reich V. Sexual revolution. St. Petersburg; M., 1997. S.258-259.

[x] Uspenskaya V.I., Kozlova N.N. Family in the concept of Marxist feminism // Family in Russia: theory and reality. Tver, 1999. S. 87-88.

[x] Kollontai A. Revolution of life. Woman's Labor in the Evolution of the Economy: Lectures delivered at Ya.M. Sverdlov. M.; Pg., 1923. Published in: The Art of Cinema. 1991. No. 6. P.105-109.

[x] Hitler A. Mein Kampf. M., 1993. S.338. P.343. p.342..

[x] Bryson W. The political theory of feminism. Translation: T. Lipovskoy. Under the general editorship of T. Gurko. M.: Idea-Press, S.139-151.

(organ of the Union for the Equality of Women, editor-publisher M.A. Chekhova)

E. Shchepkina

Apologia for "bourgeois women" in Ms. Kollontai's book
"The social foundations of the women's question"

The development of social issues has its own peculiarities. In the far west of Europe, socialist teachings had a well-prepared ground, penetrated into the minds of citizens brought up in an atmosphere of political freedom. These teachings found our German neighbors very poorly prepared, barely beginning to adapt to the constitutional system, and therefore German socialism, with its enormous influence on science and culture, has not yet merged into one whole with the political life of the country.

Socialist teachings penetrated into Russia much earlier than the first glimpses of political freedom; they captured minds completely inexperienced in political struggle and reigned in them as pure, holy ideas; they immediately gained a strong educational influence among the intelligent circles, and later became an instrument of political propaganda. Intelligent youth needed an ideal to serve which strength, freedom, and life would be devoted. Political speeches were still beyond their capacity, but socialist propaganda, which aroused the dark masses, gave moral satisfaction. The centuries-old alienation of our people from cultural life has made it very immovable and unyielding; only something that tenaciously captures the most painful places of his everyday life can stir up his dormant consciousness - the right to land, the concept of property, the oppression of many offenders, and such were the pictures of the future reorganization of society. The moral and educational force of socialism is mighty in our country; but creativity in social science is rather weak, and literature is poor, despite periods of enthusiasm for socialist teachings. Probably, the influence of the unfortunate habit of too often turning them into an instrument of agitational and educational work also affects here; hence the captivating lightness of heart with which they are often taken to the study of very complex social questions. The book by Mrs. Kollontai that lies before us also belongs to the category of such studies.

Judging by the introduction, one might think that the author needed to search for the social foundations of the women's question only in order to protect proletarian working women from being carried away by the women's congress organized by the bourgeoisie. The most extensive chapter of the book is devoted to the activities of "bourgeois" feminists and their struggle for political rights; and the shortest - the struggle for the economic independence of women: For a popular work, the author gives many indications of literature, but what? Of the 48 references to publications of a social-democratic hue, the lion's share goes to the work of Lily Brown and Bucher's thin pamphlet. Bebel and Kautsky are not in favor (and understandably, they refuse to fit the women's question into the framework of the class struggle); general historical and general economic literature, with a very small admixture of scientific research, accounts for 39 references. Along with these 87 indications, we have 144 references to literature specifically on the women's issue and the so-called feminist; among them, the magazine "Women's Union" is given a place of honor; and from two pamphlets published by the Union for the Equality of Women - "Protocols and Reports" and "The Women's Movement of 1905." - Ms. Kollontai extracted such a mass of data for the study of social foundations, which the publishers did not even suspect in them.

Of course, "feminist" literature is needed for polemical purposes, to convince the reader of the unsuitability of feminist unions and leagues for the proletarians who themselves go ahead of the women's movement on their own; all these organizations pursue narrow female goals in the spirit of the class interests of the bourgeoisie. Carried away by polemics, Ms. Kollontai forgets her promise - to clarify for us the social foundations of the question that occupies her - she tries to humble the bourgeois before the might of the women's proletarian movement; what happens as a result, we will see from a comparison of the totality of data with which the author characterizes one and the other current.

Since ancient times, women have carried a huge work. In the Middle Ages, a significant numerical preponderance of the female population over the male was noticed, especially in cities; women struggled to get work; fought with the workshops, penetrating them with great difficulty. Among these conditions, colossal prostitution developed. But in the old days, labor did not exalt, but rather belittled a woman, locking her into the musty atmosphere of a domestic way of life. Only with the growth of the capitalist economy, when entrepreneurs recruit women and children to work with machines, do proletarian women enter the broad social arena; thanks to this, they played a huge role in the French revolution: the unemployed broke into the National Assembly, demanding work and food. In Grenoble, the petty bourgeoisie, merchants (?); supported by peasant women, encouraged men to defend the rights of the people.

By exploiting the forces of the masses of women and children, the capitalists have created an unbearable condition for the working people, dangerous for posterity. This caused the state to intervene in the relationship between owners and workers; thus the plight of women hastened the drafting of labor legislation; In addition to working in the factory and in the workshops, busy at home with family and household, the workers do not have time to discuss their situation and the tactics of the working groups, therefore they often lack consciousness and personal initiative; they are difficult to attract to trade unions.

A vicious circle of sorts emerges, Ms. Kollontai admits: only the conscious work of the proletarian women elevates them and improves their situation, and for the development of consciousness, an improvement in the situation is necessary.

And yet, despite this, she claims that it was the proletarians working in the ranks of men that "moved the women's question forward." Feminists began their agitation much later, only from the middle of the 19th century.

However, the reservation is not long in coming: "True, even before (that is, before the indicated era), the demand for equal rights for women was put forward as one of the inalienable signs of democracy," the author admits. She recalls the exploits of American women in the struggle for the liberation of their homeland and their demands for political rights; the activities of French thinkers who opened a free university for women, Condorcet's formulas for gender equality. Ms. Kollontai recognizes Olympia de Gouges and other defenders of the declaration of the rights of women and citizens as "bright, charming, heroic female images"; they gave the first slogans to the women's movement. Since the 30s of the 19th century (the time of the strengthening of constitutional forms in Europe and the democratization of voting rights), outstanding intellectual representatives of the third estate have been striving for the expansion of the rights to education and service. Then political agitation takes shape; there are women's leagues, unions, congresses gather. The author points to the nature and success of the women's movement in different countries. Everywhere, except in Germany, the author is forced to note that the socialists and working groups, one way or another, support the political actions of feminists. In the republics (North America and France), the distinction between the feminist and the proletarian movement is "even thinner, more elusive." It would seem that the most fertile ground for the study of the social foundations of the women's question is Austria-Hungary, where 52% of self-employed women, and Italy with 40%; but Mrs. Kollontai says almost nothing about these countries.

As for Russia, since the 1960s, a type of amateur Russian intellectual has been developed here, thirsting for freedom and the full development of her personality. "Boldly taking up arms against the hypocrisy of double morality, they fearlessly enter into battle with the viciously bristling and poisonously hissing host of bourgeois philistines," the author writes. Russian intellectuals struggle with those close to their hearts, with the outdated, deadening atmosphere of family life.

Just as boldly they go to fight against the outdated political and social system. "What can be compared with the image of a woman, attractive in her inner beauty, a penitent noblewoman of the 70s, who renounces all privileges in order to merge with the people?" Is this not a panegyric to the exploits of the Russian intelligentsia, even the nobles, and not just the bourgeois-democratic?

Recently, with the growth of the revolutionary wave, the Women's Equal Rights Union has emerged, uniting socially minded intellectuals with more right-wing elements. This strong and serious organization played the main role in the broad movement of 1905, when, it seems, there was not a corner left in Russia where, in one way or another, the voice of a woman was not heard, reminding herself of herself, demanding civil rights for herself. But at the beginning of 1906, the union had already stratified: leftist socialist elements engaged in agitation among workers; the center and the rightists carried on vigorous agitation in the first State Duma, in the group of Cadets. parties. (Here Ms. Kollontai for some reason forgets to mention the agitation of the union among members of the labor group, staunch defenders of women's rights, during the May debates.)

Now the members of the union have greatly improved, they are content with peaceful propaganda, they are preparing a women's congress with a very broad program, for which one cannot but thank them.

These are the facts cited by Mrs. Kollontai in support of her opinion that the main role in the women's movement belongs to the proletarians. Their selection is obviously unfortunate; they tell the reader not at all what the author wanted to say. The calamities of the proletarians, the spontaneity of these calamities associated with the physical properties of women, emphasized by the author, only justify many of the tendencies of feminists and explain the reasons why socialists so often support their political agitation: feminists consciously break through ways to improve the status of women. The author's desire to prove the insignificance of the results, even the futility of the bourgeois women's movement, using his own literature, turned out to be a risky task.

On the left, socially minded feminists, Mrs. Kollontai accuses their duality of tendencies and asks sternly: "The program of the workers' party contains everything you aspire to; if you are not playing a double game, if you are sincere, then join it." Let's try to answer the author to find out the true essence of the duality of the left feminists.

Chernyshevsky somewhere expressed a very witty thought: "People work and enjoy the elementary benefits of life in approximately the same way (he does not touch upon the situation); but they differ greatly in the use of their free time."

Indeed, the ability to use one's free time affects the personal initiative of a person, his individuality. Mandatory, necessary work is usually imposed on him by fate, deafly indifferent to his inclinations; and free time - the most important, earliest and most inalienable personal property of a person - and the ability to use it provide enormous advantages. They enable the individual to develop his abilities, improve his work, expand his horizons of thought and social relations. A developed working person creates for himself a complete double life - one common with his neighbors, generic, and the other - specific, individual. Both sides of life are inherent in humanity, and people cannot be forced to be absorbed by one tribal life - the right of a strong individual will always manifest itself.

Everyone appreciates the power and greatness of the uninterrupted life of the masses, entire nationalities, with the constant change of generations, keeping the guarantee of eternal progress, the immortality of eternal truths for thousands of years. But every tiny human unit is destined to spend a few short days on earth, days always unique; these days will never be repeated and belong exclusively to the one experiencing them, their master and creator; wherefore, the desire to use these brief moments in his own way is inherent in man. Of course, in the midst of the common life of the masses, people experience the leveling power of a common culture; but these same cultural benefits also help the growth of personalities, allowing more and more time for personal life.

The value of the individual rises in parallel with the conscious actions of the working masses and cohesive parties in the political arena. Individualism is not at all in conflict with socialism; they form two paths of development equally inherent in the human race; without merging together, both side by side doing their job.

These are the two paths along which women go along with all of humanity. Some, a small minority, thanks to personal ability to work, happy conditions of the situation, have acquired the ability to use their free time, prepared themselves for intellectual work, sometimes even know how to imprint their individuality on it; they early learned to combine collective social activity with their own special work. These are the women that Ms. Kollontai touches on in passing, without finishing speaking, those socially minded individuals that she either mixes into the general circle of feminists, or seems to single out, accusing them of a dual direction, i.e. precisely in that complex activity that makes her, Ms. Kollontai, recognize them as the most serious representatives of the women's movement.

New forms of popular representation, developing by the middle of the 19th century, awakened the individual, raised the level of development and importance of average people, especially needed by democracy, and in particular women, and intelligent women are quite typical average people. Here is the answer to Mrs. Kuskova's strange bewilderment, why exactly now in Russia she had to talk about the women's issue, why the women's issue became so acute in the 19th century. Yes, because, of course, the increasingly complex system of democracy has called into its service a lot of new faces, including women, and the ranks of new active citizens necessitate updating legislation.

No one argues with Ms. Kollontai that the women's movement is carried out by two currents, but they cannot be explained by one class strife, two aspects of a person's life, collective and individual, which he will live as long as humanity exists, affect here. Where people early realized the double life of the individual, in the lands of the Anglo-Saxons, for example, there representatives of different classes easily unite for political actions. In countries still deprived of political freedom, people tend to look suspiciously and hostilely at each other; here, as here, in Russia, under the sad conditions of our society, the participation or absence of proletarians in bourgeois organizations still does not change the essence of things; the proletarians still have to, first of all, study, and the intellectuals must train new cadres of cultural figures, otherwise they risk losing their rasion d "etre.

Ms. Kollontai's book is, after all, the first attempt to restore the enormous significance of the women's issue, to arouse in it that active interest with which it was treated in the literature of the 60s and 70s of the last century. This attempt is to be welcomed; the book is interesting, written lively, ardently, with literary talent, and its mistakes and shortcomings, alas, are characteristic of many, many works of Russian literature of the same trend.

1909, No. 2

1 Right to exist (fr.)

Alexandra Mikhailovna Kollontai is one of the few revolutionary women whose name has not been lost in the annals of modern Russian history; this was mainly due to her exceptional biography - she was the first Russian woman ambassador for more than twenty years. But no less interesting is another, now little-known side of her versatile activities: Kollontai's scientific studies, which materialized in numerous books and articles on the so-called women's issue. During the pre-revolutionary decade, Kollontai published a number of fundamental works on the position of female workers in Russia, as well as a considerable number of polemical articles, sharply criticizing Western feminists for the lack of a class approach in their work.

Kollontai's long party experience (she shared the ideas of the Communist Party already from the beginning of the 1910s) and her merits in promoting and scientifically developing the ideas of women's equality in Russia, attracting the attention of Russian society to the problems of working mothers made it logical her appointment to the post of people's commissar of state charity in the new Bolshevik government in 1917. The Communist Party, which came to power, proclaimed the upbringing of the “new man” as one of its fundamental goals, and therefore the intention of the Bolsheviks to begin this complex process with a remake of the family, the main “cell” of any society, including the communist one, seems quite logical and thoughtful.

The attack on the bourgeois traditional family began in a completely civilized way: among the very first acts of Soviet power in December 1917 were laws on civil marriage, which took the place of a church one, and on divorces. The next step was the rapid drafting of family and school codes, carried out as early as 1918.

Following the new laws and codes, moreover, even a general acquaintance with them, in such a gigantic country as Russia, with a multi-million illiterate population, was possible only with the most active and extensive propaganda work, in which one of the leading places rightfully belonged to A.M. Kollontai, who had many years of experience in spreading the ideas of women's equality and new family relations.

Kollontai's early works - "The Social Foundations of the Women's Question" (1909), "Society and Motherhood" (1916) and some others - were of a completely scientific, analytical nature. In them, the author, using sociological and statistical data, tried to analyze the state of the modern bourgeois and proletarian family, the causes of women's inequality, to explain the new features that have emerged in the position of women of various social strata in bourgeois society using the example of many (about fifteen) European countries. But even in these works, the influence of communist ideas is felt: Kollontai, for example, agrees with the opinion of Clara Zetkin that women's mission to raise children is a relic of the past, antiquity, which has no place under modern social conditions. “The mother is indeed the natural educator of the child during the feeding period, but not longer. But as soon as the period of feeding has passed, it is completely indifferent for the development of the child whether the mother or someone else takes care of him ”(Kollontai A.M., Social Foundations of the Women’s Question. St. Petersburg, 1909. P. 35). Kollontai also assumed that in the future collectivist society, children, at the request of their parents, would be brought up in children's institutions from an early age, since mothers would be busy at work.

Already from the first works of Kollontai, two main circles of problems were clearly identified, which occupied her most deeply. Firstly, this is the problem of a working-class family and the position of a woman mother in it, and secondly, the question of the boundaries of a woman's freedom in love and marriage. For example, one section of her book The Social Foundations of the Women's Question examines the problem of prostitution in a bourgeois society with a peculiar class bias. “To fight prostitution means not only to destroy its modern police regulation, no, it means to fight against the foundations of the capitalist system, it means to strive to destroy the class division of society, it means to clear the way for new forms of human community.<...>Instead of the insulting, painful sale of caresses, the proletariat strives for free intercourse of free individuals; instead of a compulsory form of marital cohabitation - unhindered adherence to direct, spiritual attraction, free from narrow worldly calculation. There, in the new world of socialized labor, the hypocritical double morality of modern times will disappear, and sexual morality will truly become a matter of everyone's personal conscience” (She Zhe. Society and Motherhood. St. Petersburg, 1916, p. 41).

After 1917, Kollontai, in his scientific and journalistic works, creates a utopian model of the future socialist family. This peculiar social structure is based on the complete equality of man and woman, husband and wife, which, according to Kollontai and her supporters, is due to the fact that the household will die out under socialism. “It gives way to public economy. Instead of a working wife cleaning the apartment, there may and will be in a communist society specialists workers and working women who will go around the rooms in the morning and clean. Instead of tormenting themselves with cooking, spending their last free hours in the kitchen, cooking lunches and dinners, communal canteens and central kitchens will be widely developed in communist society. The central laundries, where the weekly worker takes the family's linen and receives it washed and ironed, will also remove this work from the woman's shoulders. Special workshops for darning clothes will allow women workers, instead of sitting for hours on patches, spend an hour on a good book, go to a meeting, a concert, a rally. All four kinds of work, which still keeps the household, are doomed to die out with the victory of the communist system ”(She same. New morality and working class. M., 1919. P. 11).

The upbringing of children (another “family bond”), at the request of their parents, will also be taken up by the state, which will gradually take on the heavy burden of caring for future members of communist society. “Not a narrow, closed family with quarrels of parents, with a habit of thinking only about the welfare of relatives, can bring up a new person, but only those educational institutions: playgrounds, children's colonies - hearths where the child will spend most of the day and where reasonable educators will make him a conscious communist who recognizes one holy slogan: solidarity, comradeship, mutual assistance, devotion to the collective. All this is done in order to enable a woman to combine useful work for the state with the duties of motherhood” (Ibid., p. 26).

Thus, according to Kollontai, the traditional family ceases to be necessary, firstly, for the state, since the household is no longer profitable for it, it unnecessarily distracts workers from more useful, productive work, and secondly, for family members, because one of the main The tasks of the family - the upbringing of children - are taken over by society, especially developing a sense of collectivism as the main thing for the "new man", even contrary to his individualistic nature.

But how will the problems associated with love be solved in the new communist society? What role will she play in a woman's life, what forms will she take? A. M. Kollontai tries to answer these questions in accordance with the views then prevailing in the Komsomol. True, these answers often depend primarily on the vicissitudes of her own female fate, refute the author's judgments on these problems, do not correlate with the so-called "class basis of love", and diverge from the principles generally accepted in those years.

In the works of 1918-1919, for example, in "The New Morality and the Working Class" and "The Family and the Communist State", she declares: "The new labor state needs a new form of communication between the sexes, men and women will become, first of all, brothers and comrades" ( She, The Family and the Communist State, Moscow, 1918, p. 72). At the same time, Kollontai was aware that “the re-education of a woman's psyche in relation to the new conditions of her economic and social existence is not given without a deep, dramatic breakdown. The woman turns from the object of the male soul into the subject of an independent tragedy” (Ibid., p. 22).

Kollontai's theory of the new family and the role of women in it is inconsistent and contradictory. In the same work, The Family and the Communist State, she says that the family ceases to be necessary at all, and that marriage is needed in the form of a free comradely union of two people who love and trust each other, since the desire of women to create families cannot die at once. The reason for such contradictions lies, of course, not in the logical inconsistency of Kollontai (she demonstrated her original and rather profound scientific abilities in the pre-revolutionary years), they are in the utopianism of the ideas that she promoted, supported and developed in every possible way. As an orthodox communist, she did not try to think about the possibility or impossibility of implementing these concepts, the main thing for her was the creation of a coherent theory, since in a new society everything should be new. At the same time, Kollontai's arguments about the sexual code of morality of the working class are frankly declarative and banal. The obviousness of the old truth that each new ascending class enriches humanity with a new ideology peculiar to this particular class is obvious. At the same time, Kollontai believes, “the sexual code of morality is an integral part of this ideology. Only with the help of new spiritual values ​​that meet the tasks of the rising class can this struggling class strengthen its social positions, only through new norms and ideals can it successfully win power from antagonistic social groups.

To find the main criterion of morality, which is generated by the specific interests of the working class, and to bring the emerging sexual norms into line with it - such is the task that requires its resolution on the part of the ideologists of the working class ”(She, New Morality and Working Class. M., 1919. S. 18).

Being one of the ideologists of this class, Kollontai tried to develop a new code of sexual morality, which can be called the code of "free love", but following it is possible, according to its compiler, only with a radical reorganization of socio-economic relations on the basis of communism (Ibid., p. .25). One of the bearers of the new code of morality can be considered the so-called single woman, a new type of woman that appeared at the end of the 19th century in bourgeois societies. Kollontai, without hiding his sympathy for such women, describes the system of their views on love. A single woman is financially independent, “possesses a valuable inner world, externally and internally independent, requires respect for her “I”. He cannot stand despotism, even from the side of the man he loves. Love ceases to be the content of her life, love takes a subordinate place, which it plays in most men. Naturally, a single woman can experience acute drama. But infatuation, passion, love - these are just the stripes of life. Its true content is that “holy” that the new woman serves: a social idea, science, vocation, creativity ... And this is her own business, her own goal for her, for the new woman, often more important, more precious, more sacred than all the joys of the heart, all pleasures of passion ... "(Social Foundations of the Women's Question. St. Petersburg, 1909. P. 82) Although Kollontai does not directly state that a single woman from a proletarian environment is the ideal that women of a socialist society should strive for, such a conclusion is obvious .

The views of a prominent public figure on "free love" gained wide popularity and relative popularity in the first years of Soviet power. At the same time, the most conservative class in Russia at that time - the peasantry - literally shuddered from such communist ideas about the future of the family, about the role of a woman in it, which was widely reflected in fiction, drama, and journalism of subsequent years.

In connection with the spread of Kollontai's views, the memoirs of K. Zetkin about the attitude of V. I. Lenin towards them are interesting. In a conversation with her, he admitted: “Although I am least of all a gloomy ascetic, the so-called “new sex life” of young people, and often adults, quite often seems to me purely bourgeois, it seems like a kind of good bourgeois brothel.<...>Of course, you know the famous theory that in a communist society, satisfying sexual desires and love needs is as simple and insignificant as drinking a glass of water. From this theory of the "glass of water" our youth went berserk ... "Lenin argued that all this has nothing to do with the freedom of love," as we communists understand it "(K. Zetkin on Lenin: Memoirs and Meetings. M. , 1925. S. 67).

True, Lenin did not share with Zetkin his thoughts about how communists understand free love, but the leader's opinion about free love speaks of his traditional views, typical of pre-revolutionary times. Lenin constantly emphasized that the revolution requires the exertion of all forces from the masses, various kinds of sentiment only hinder the construction of a new society, while Kollontai believed that the revolution had already finally won, therefore, “winged eros” should be used for the benefit of the collective. Lenin did not enter into a discussion on this issue, realizing that "free love" and "winged eros" contribute, on the one hand, to the destruction of the traditional family, and on the other, they form a new person, a man of the masses, a member of the collective. Thus, both V. I. Lenin and A. M. Kollontai in this matter, in essence, were, if not like-minded, then at least allies.

In 1923, having experienced a personal drama, Kollontai published the story "The Love of Labor Bees", in which the theory of free love received an artistic form (rather mediocre). But the story was popular mainly because of the coincidence of the mood of society with the main motive of the work - the liberation of women and men from the bonds of the bourgeois family and the observance of the class approach in sexual relations. Kollontai in her work sharply condemned the hero of the story - a communist who left a proletarian woman for a woman from a bourgeois environment. This work ended the active literary activity of A. M. Kollontai, the main communist theorist and propagandist of “free love” and “new morality”. Since 1923, she entered the diplomatic service, she did not return to issues of women's equality, family, gender relations, but the echoes of her views and ideas in one form or another survived their creator, remained in the texts of the new socialist realist culture.

APPENDIX

A. M. Kollontai

Love and the New Morality

()

Only a fundamental change in the human psyche - enriching it with "love potency" can open the reserved door leading to free air, to the path of more loving, closer, and, consequently, happier relationships between the sexes. The latter, with inevitable regularity, requires a radical transformation of socio-economic relations, in other words, a transition to communism.

What are the main imperfections, what are the shadow sides legal marriage? Legal marriage is based on two equally false principles: indissolubility, on the one hand, the idea of ​​"property", of undivided belonging to each other, on the other.

... "Indissolubility" becomes even more absurd if we imagine that most legal marriages are concluded "in the dark", that the parties to be married have only the most vague idea of ​​each other. And not only about the psyche of the other, moreover, they do not know at all whether there is either a physiological affinity, or a bodily consonance, without which marital happiness is impossible.

The notion of property, of the rights of “undivided possession” of one spouse by the other, is the second point that poisons a legal marriage. In fact, it turns out the greatest absurdity: two people, touching only a few facets of the soul, are "obliged" to approach each other with all sides of their polysyllabic "I". Continuous stay with each other, the inevitable "demanding" to the subject of "property" turn even ardent love into indifference.

The moments of "indissolubility" and "property" in a legal marriage have a harmful effect on the human psyche, forcing him to do least mental efforts to maintain attachment by external ways of a life partner chained to him.<...>The modern form of legal marriage impoverishes the soul and in no way contributes to the accumulation of reserves of "great love" in humanity, which the Russian genius Tolstoy yearned for so much.

But another form of sexual intercourse distorts human psychology even more severely - selling prostitution. <...>Prostitution extinguishes love in the hearts; Eros flies away from her in fear, afraid to stain his golden wings on a mud-splattered bed.<...>It distorts our concepts, forcing us to see in one of the most serious moments of human life - in the act of love, in this last chord of complex spiritual experiences, something shameful, low, rude animal ...

The psychological incompleteness of sensations during purchased caress is especially detrimental to the psychology of men: a man who uses prostitution, in which all the ennobling incoming spiritual moments of truly erotic ecstasy are absent, learns to approach a woman with “lowered” demands, with a simplified and discolored psyche.

Accustomed to submissive, forced caresses, he no longer looks closely at the complex work that is going on in the soul of his female partner, he ceases to “hear” her experiences and capture their shades.

But even in the third form of marriage communication - free love relationship - there are many dark sides. The imperfections of this marriage form are a reflected property. Modern man brings into a free union a psyche already mutilated by incorrect, unhealthy moral ideas, brought up by legal matrimony, on the one hand, and the dark abyss of prostitution, on the other. "Free love" encounters two inevitable obstacles: "love impotence", which is the essence of our dispersed individualistic world, and the absence of the necessary leisure for truly emotional experiences. Modern man has no time to "love". In a society based on the beginning of competition, with the fiercest struggle for existence, with the inevitable pursuit either for a simple piece of bread, or for profit and a career, there is no place left for a cult, for a demanding and fragile Eros. ... Our time is distinguished by the absence of the "art of love"; people absolutely do not know how to maintain bright, clear, inspired relationships, they do not know the full price of "erotic friendship". Love is either a soul-rending tragedy or a vulgar vaudeville. It is necessary to lead humanity out of this impasse, it is necessary to teach people beautiful, clear and not burdensome experiences. Only after going through the school of erotic friendship will the human psyche be able to perceive "great love", cleansed of its dark sides. Any love experience (of course, not a grossly flat physiological act) does not impoverish, but enriches the human soul.<...>Only "great love" will give complete satisfaction. The love crisis is all the more acute, the smaller the supply of love potential inherent in human souls, the more limited the social bonds, the poorer the human psyche is in experiences of a solidary nature.

To raise this "love potency", to educate, to prepare the human psyche for the perception of "great love" - ​​such is the task of "erotic friendship".

Finally, the framework of "erotic friendship" is very extensible: it is quite possible that people who come together on the basis of easy love, free sympathy, will find each other, that a great enchantress will grow out of the "game" - great love.

Society must learn to accept all forms of marital intercourse, however unfamiliar their contours, under two conditions: that they race and were not determined by the oppression of the economic factor. As an ideal, a union based on "great love" remains monogamous. But "not permanent" and frozen. The more complex the human psyche, the more inevitable the "change". "Concubinage" or "serial monogamy" is the main form of marriage. But next to it is a whole gamut of different types of love communication between the sexes within the limits of “erotic friendship”.

The second requirement is the recognition not only in words, but also in deeds of the "sanctity of motherhood." Society is obliged in all forms and types to place "rescue stations" on the path of women in order to support her morally and financially in the most crucial period of her life.

The whole modern upbringing of a woman is aimed at closing her life in love emotions. Hence these “broken hearts”, these female images drooping from the first stormy wind. It is necessary to open the wide gates of all-round life before a woman, it is necessary to temper her heart, it is necessary to armor her will. It's time to teach a woman to take love not as the basis of life, but only as a step, as a way to reveal her true self.

Relations between the sexes and the class struggle

(From A. Kollontai's book "The New Morality and the Working Class". M., 1919)

Modern humanity is experiencing not only an acute in form, but - which is much more unfavorable and painful - a protracted sexual crisis.

The longer the crisis lasts, the more hopeless the situation of contemporaries seems to be, and with the greater bitterness humanity attacks all possible ways of resolving the "damned question".<...>The "sexual crisis" this time does not spare even the peasantry.

The tragedy of modern humanity lies not only in the fact that before our eyes the usual forms of communication between the sexes and the principles that regulate them are breaking down, but also in the fact that unusual, fresh aromas of new life aspirations are rising from deep social lowlands, poisoning the soul of modern man. longing for the ideals of a yet unrealizable future. We, people of the capitalistic-proprietary age, the age of sharp class contradictions and individualistic morality, still live and think under the heavy sign of inescapable mental loneliness. This “loneliness” amidst the vastness of crowded, wildly riotous, loudly noisy cities, this loneliness in a crowd of even close “friends and associates” makes modern man cling with painful greed to the illusion of a “close soul” - a soul that, of course, belongs to the essence of another sex, since only the "evil Eros" can with his charms, at least for a while, disperse this darkness of inescapable loneliness ...

If the "sexual crisis" is due to three-quarters of external socio-economic relations, then one-fourth of its acuteness rests undoubtedly on our "refined individualistic psyche" cherished by the dominance of bourgeois ideology. Representatives of the two sexes are looking for each other in an effort to receive through the other, through the other, the largest possible share of spiritual and physical pleasures for himself. About the experiences of another person, about the psychological work that is going on in the soul of another, the love or marriage partner thinks least of all.

We always lay claim to our love "counterparty" in its entirety and "without division", but we ourselves do not know how to observe the simplest formula of love: to treat the soul of another with the greatest frugality. We will gradually be accustomed to this formula by the new relations that are already emerging between the sexes, based on two principles unusual for us: complete freedom, equality and true comradely solidarity.<...>The sexual crisis is insoluble without a radical reform in the field of the human psyche, without an increase in humanity's "love potency". But this psychic reform depends entirely on a radical reorganization of our socio-economic relations on the basis of communism.

History has never known such a diversity of marital relations: an inseparable marriage with a “stable family” and a transient free relationship nearby, a secret adultery in marriage and an open cohabitation of a girl with her lover - a “wild marriage”, a pair marriage and a “threesome” marriage, and even a complex one. a form of marriage "foursome", not to mention the varieties of venal prostitution. And then, side by side with an admixture of the corrupting principles of the bourgeois-individualistic family, the shame of adultery and daughter-in-law, freedom in girlhood and the same “double morality” ...

In addition to the indicated main shortcoming of our modern psychology - extreme individualism, self-centeredness, brought to a cult, the "sexual crisis" is aggravated by two other typical moments that characterize the psyche of a contemporary: for centuries the assumption of inequality and unequal value of the sexes in all areas and spheres of life up to sexual inclusive ... The idea of ​​"property" goes far beyond the boundaries of "legal marriages", it is an inevitable moment interspersed in the most "free" love affair. The modern lover and mistress, with all the "theoretical" respect for freedom, would absolutely not be satisfied with the consciousness of the physiological fidelity of their love partner. In order to drive away the sign of loneliness that is always guarding us, we, with cruelty and indelicacy incomprehensible to the future of mankind, break into the soul of the creature we “beloved” and claim our rights to all the secrets of his spiritual “I”.

Instilled in mankind over the centuries, the idea of ​​"unequal" sexes has organically entered our psyche. We are accustomed to regard a woman not as a person, with individual qualities and shortcomings, regardless of her psycho-physiological experiences, but only as an appendage of a man. The personality of a man, when pronouncing a public sentence over him, is abstracted in advance from acts related to the sexual sphere. The personality of a woman is regarded in close connection with her sexual life. Such an assessment follows from the role that woman has played for centuries, and is only slowly, only gradually being made, or rather, planningetsya reassessment of values ​​in this essential area as well. Only a change in the economic role of women and her entry into an independent labor path can and will contribute to the weakening of these erroneous and hypocritical ideas.

For the working class, the greater "fluidity" and the less fixed intercourse between the sexes completely coincide and even follow directly from the basic tasks of this class. The denial of the moment of "subordination" of one member in a marriage also violates the last artificial bonds of the bourgeois family.<...>Frequent conflicts between family interests and

class, at least during strikes, with participation in the struggle, and the moral yardstick that the proletariat uses in such cases characterize with a sufficient degree of clarity the basis of the new proletarian ideology.

The sexual code of morality is an integral part of the new ideology. However, it is worth talking about "proletarian ethics" and "proletarian sexual morality" in order to run into a stereotyped objection: proletarian sexual morality is nothing more than a "superstructure"; before the entire economic base changes, there can be no place for it ... As if the ideology of any class takes shape when a turning point has already been made in socio-economic relations, ensuring the dominance of this class! The entire experience of history teaches us that the development of the ideology of a social group, and consequently of sexual morality, takes place in the very process of the toilsome struggle of a given group with hostile social forces.

To narrow the search results, you can refine the query by specifying the fields to search on. The list of fields is presented above. For example:

You can search across multiple fields at the same time:

logical operators

The default operator is AND.
Operator AND means that the document must match all the elements in the group:

research development

Operator OR means that the document must match one of the values ​​in the group:

study OR development

Operator NOT excludes documents containing this element:

study NOT development

Search type

When writing a query, you can specify the way in which the phrase will be searched. Four methods are supported: search based on morphology, without morphology, search for a prefix, search for a phrase.
By default, the search is based on morphology.
To search without morphology, it is enough to put the "dollar" sign before the words in the phrase:

$ study $ development

To search for a prefix, you need to put an asterisk after the query:

study *

To search for a phrase, you need to enclose the query in double quotes:

" research and development "

Search by synonyms

To include synonyms of a word in the search results, put a hash mark " # " before a word or before an expression in brackets.
When applied to one word, up to three synonyms will be found for it.
When applied to a parenthesized expression, a synonym will be added to each word if one was found.
Not compatible with no-morphology, prefix, or phrase searches.

# study

grouping

Parentheses are used to group search phrases. This allows you to control the boolean logic of the request.
For example, you need to make a request: find documents whose author is Ivanov or Petrov, and the title contains the words research or development:

Approximate word search

For an approximate search, you need to put a tilde " ~ " at the end of a word in a phrase. For example:

bromine ~

The search will find words such as "bromine", "rum", "prom", etc.
You can optionally specify the maximum number of possible edits: 0, 1, or 2. For example:

bromine ~1

The default is 2 edits.

Proximity criterion

To search by proximity, you need to put a tilde " ~ " at the end of a phrase. For example, to find documents with the words research and development within 2 words, use the following query:

" research development "~2

Expression relevance

To change the relevance of individual expressions in the search, use the sign " ^ " at the end of an expression, and then indicate the level of relevance of this expression in relation to the others.
The higher the level, the more relevant the given expression.
For example, in this expression, the word "research" is four times more relevant than the word "development":

study ^4 development

By default, the level is 1. Valid values ​​are a positive real number.

Search within an interval

To specify the interval in which the value of some field should be, you should specify the boundary values ​​in brackets, separated by the operator TO.
A lexicographic sort will be performed.

Such a query will return results with the author starting from Ivanov and ending with Petrov, but Ivanov and Petrov will not be included in the result.
To include a value in an interval, use square brackets. Use curly braces to escape a value.

M .: Politizdat, 1972. - 430 pp. Collection of articles, speeches and documents is devoted to the communist and labor movement in the USSR and Europe in the 20s of the XX century: the activities of social democratic parties in Europe, the work of trade unions, working conditions of the proletariat, activities of the International and much more. Preface
On the issue of class struggle. 1904
Who are the Social Democrats and what do they want? 1906
Finnish bourgeoisie and proletariat. July 1906
Introduction to the book "The Social Foundations of the Women's Question". 1908
International socialist conferences of working women. 1907-1910
International proletariat and war. From a speech in Stockholm on May 1, 1912
Women's Day. February 1913
Great fighter for the rights and freedom of women (in memory of August Bebel). 1913
And in Russia there will be a women's day! February 1914
War and our immediate tasks. November 1914
Jean Jaures. December 1914
Who needs a war? 1915
Why was the proletariat of Germany silent in the July days? September 1915
Introduction to the book "Society and Motherhood". 1915
The Statue of Liberty. Late 1916
The results of the election campaign in the United States. Late 1916
Who needs a king and is it possible to do without him? February 1917
Our monument to freedom fighters. March 1917
Where does “revolutionary defencism” lead? April 1917
Our tasks. May 1917
Speech at the IX Congress of the Social Democratic Party of Finland. June 17, 1917
Speech at the First All-Russian Congress of Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies on the Finnish Question. June 20, 1917
Restoration of administrative arbitrariness (letter to the editor). September 1917
When will the war end? September 1917
Bankruptcy of the slogan "civil peace". October 1917
Why the Bolsheviks must win. December 1917
"Cross of Motherhood" and the Soviet Republic. September 1918
Old age is not a curse, but a well-deserved rest. October 1918
Letter to the workers of red Petrograd. November 1918
It's time to put an end to the "black nests". November 1918
Pops are still working. December 1918
How and why the First All-Russian Congress of Working Women was convened. 1919
Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg are fighters, heroes and martyrs. February 1919
Recording of A. M. Kollontai's speech on a gramophone record. March 7, 1919
Who did the workers lose? (in memory of Ya.M. Sverdlov). March 1919
Report on work among women at the VIII Congress of the RCP (b). March 22, 1919
What are we fighting for? May 1919
The fight against the king-hunger. May 1919
Whose will be the golden harvest? July 1919
On the history of the movement of working women in Russia. 1919
Speech at the II All-Russian Congress of the RKSM. October 5, 1919
Break in the village. November 1919
First International Conference of Communist Women. 1920
Tasks of departments for work among women. November 1920
Meeting of communist organizers of women of the East. April 1921
Trade unions and workers. May 1921
Worker and peasant woman in Soviet Russia. May - November 1921
Second International Conference of Communist Women. June 1921
Tsar-Hunger and the Red Army. August 1921
The Third International and the female worker. November 1921
Norway and our trade balance. November 1923
Revolutionary Mexico. September 1927
What did October give to the woman of the West. October 1927
Opposition and party mass. October 1927
Great builder. November 1927
Women wrestlers in the days of the Great October. November 1927
Interview to the correspondent of the Norwegian newspaper "Bergene Aftenblad". June 25, 1928
A Soviet woman is a full citizen of her country. September 22, 1946
Lenin thought big and did not forget the small. January 1946
Lenin in Smolny. 1947
In memory of Nadezhda Konstantinovna Krupskaya. February 1949
Notes
The main dates of the life and work of A.M. Kollontai