Most people think of Communism—if they think about it at all—as a purely economic force. That is what we were taught in school and university; it is what we will hear in the rare instances when Communism is discussed honestly in the various media.
That understanding may be correct as far as it goes, but it is woefully shortsighted. Communism is more than a call to an economic revolution, much more.
Karl Marx saw traditional marriage as a function of the capitalist system, a way in which a man gained legal and complete possession of a woman who became his private property. To end that system, he argued that both women and men should “love” anyone that they pleased—advocating what many modern people call free love.
This is a marvelous example of Prof. Plinio Correa de Olivera’s contention that we are in a single revolution which has moved in several phases through the last five centuries. In the so-called Reformation, the process of separating the Church from marriage began. In fact many Calvinists saw marriage as a civil contract having nothing to do with the Church.
This, then, expanded into the phase of revolution known as the Enlightenment, in which any sense of faithfulness in marriage was dismissed. Jean-Jacques Rousseau argued that marital fidelity was simply unnatural—and that it should be abandoned so that man could become the being that nature intended him to be. At this point, however, belief in this theory was limited to the intelligentsia. For the common farmer and shop owner, the benefits of marriage were too obvious to be dismissed so easily.
The third phase of the Revolution—Communism—further expanded this free love idea by seeing marriage was a function of capitalism that would have to be destroyed. To Marx and his legion of followers, free love would lead to the advancement of society.
In a 1965 conference to those who followed him, Prof. Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira expanded on this connection between Communism and the philosophy of free love. He said:
“According to the claim of equal rights for both men and women, if impurity is lawful to a man, so it shall be to a woman. Egalitarianism thus leads to an authorization of free love for both sexes. Divorce has generated free love; sensuality has often generated free love without going through divorce.
“What is the communist goal regarding marriage? It is free love. If it can be said to some extent, that divorce is the condition of marriage proper to the world after the French Revolution, it can also be said that free love is the condition of marriage, of relationships between the sexes, proper to a communist regime.
“It does not stop here. For, from the moment that free love between men and women is allowed it will also be allowed between people of the same sex, for that is free love in all its force. A moment will come—desired by Marcusians1 and anarchists—of total nudity and complete and entire freedom in sexual relations, as happens among animals.”2
Our modern world is heavily seasoned by the political, spiritual, and sexual anarchy of the sixties. Today, the logical consequences of those ideas are coming to pass as was foreseen by Prof. de Oliveira.
We see the movement for homosexual “marriage” that has infected our entire society, even many leaders of Holy Mother Church. We see a level of indecency that approaches total nudity in a world in which attire that would have been completely unacceptable as recently as 1960 as “conservative.” What could be more animal-like than the “hook-up culture” that pervades so much of modern society?
The “errors of Russia” that Our Lady spoke of at Fatima in 1917 did not disappear with the fall of the Soviet Union. The error that is known as free love can be seen in virtually every phase of American life–from the schoolhouse to the senior citizens’ communities.
- Herbert Marcuse was an American philosopher, born in Germany, who gained much acclaim from the “New Left” of the 1970s. He argued that modern capitalism creates psychological constraints, especially in the sexual realm, which much be thrown off in order for the individual to be emancipated. See //www.britannica.com/biography/Herbert-Marcuse.
- Taken from an informal lecture Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira gave on March 25, 1965. It has been translated and adapted for publication without his revision.