Some Marxists have a skepticism of love, that it is more of an ideology designed to support capitalism than a true emotion, at least in regards to it’s own definition. Liberalism, a primarily capitalistic ideology, for example, ultimately used love in such a pathetic manner. Unprincipled peace, rejecting conflict in favor “giving love a chance,” letting things occur for the sake of friendship even though someone has clearly done wrong, refraining from arguments because of “political correctness, bias,” or some other nonsense. This is not only one type of liberalism, but one type of “love.” The idealistic, petty bourgeois conceptions of love in capitalism are false, and may even be detrimental to people as oversimplifying reality. And even more detrimental is the rampant “decadence” of bourgeois society in which love, sex, all the like is sold as a commodity, an image, or some other product. This must end.
So how do communists define love? The answer still varies among us. The one thing scientific communists can agree on is that free love is harmful to society as a whole; there is a notion that Communists wholeheartedly support “free love,” which most likely came about through Clara Zetkin’s ultra-leftist views. She proclaimed that: “Love should be free, like drinking water from a glass,” but Lenin responded to her beliefs by proclaiming the theory of free-love as un-Marxist and saying: “But will the normal person in normal circumstances lie down in the gutter and drink out of a puddle, or out of a glass with a rim greasy from many lips?” Lenin did acknowledge that “thirst must be satisfied,” but realized that free love is neither a new theory or a communist theory and should not be treated with sympathy. Free love was preached in the last century as “emancipation of the heart” and today it has more largely become “emancipation of the the flesh,” in bourgeois society. The dissoluteness in sexual and love life is bourgeois decay. The proletariat, however, does not need intoxication from “free love,” but self-control, self-discipline. Otherwise you have the possibility of ending up like the society in Brave New World were sex is used as a “weapon” of control. Marxism as a social system means the emancipation of LGBT, woman’s rights, and so forth, so of course love is to be “emancipated” from exploitation as well.
For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce free love; it has existed almost from time immemorial.
Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other’s wives. (Ah, those were the days!)
Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalized system of free love. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of free love springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private. (Marx, The Communist Manifesto).
In communist society as well, love of fellow man is more prevalent, as the people grow into a closer community. There is no petty discrimination, but friendship. Personally, I believe love should not be defined purely in emotion in the predefined sense, but a way you treat someone; respect, loyalty, being a good listener, offering advice, helping someone out, and always being there for the one you love. There are ultimately a myriad of ways of analyzing love, and political beliefs may or may not factor into your views. So, what are your views about love?