The Communist Attack Against Morality and American Society

Please follow us on X and Telegram

Many revolutions, including the sexual revolution, claim to liberate mankind. Curiously, it usually begins by dismantling the family.

Strong families pass down faith, morality, personal responsibility, and private property—precisely the institutions that prevent the state from becoming everyone’s ultimate parent. That has long made the traditional family an inconvenient obstacle for many revolutionary ideologies.

Marxism and the Family
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels argued that the traditional family was rooted in private property and economic inequality. In The Communist Manifesto, they envisioned the eventual disappearance of the “bourgeois family.” Engels later claimed that marriage largely existed to preserve wealth, inheritance, and male dominance.

To many socialist revolutionaries, lifelong monogamous marriage wasn’t a sacred covenant—it was an outdated business contract. Apparently, “till death do us part” was far less appealing than “until the next committee meeting.”

Sexual Liberation: The Grand Experiment
These ideas inspired several nineteenth-century utopian communes that rejected conventional marriage. The most famous, the Oneida Community in New York, practiced “complex marriage,” where every adult was considered spiritually married to every other adult and open sexuality of all types was pervasive. Exclusive relationships were discouraged, community leaders encouraged open intimate relationships, and children were increasingly raised collectively.

Other communes promoted communal living, collective child-rearing, and varying degrees of sexual freedom. Marriage was portrayed as oppressive, jealousy as unenlightened, and sexual restraint as little more than bourgeois baggage. The promise was liberation. The reality was often confusion, fractured relationships, and eventually, collapse. It turns out that replacing wedding vows with committee oversight wasn’t quite the social breakthrough it was advertised to be.

The Soviet Reality Check
After the Bolshevik Revolution, divorce became easy, marriage lost much of its legal significance, and some revolutionaries championed the idea that sexual relations should be largely free of traditional moral restraints.

Same Philosophy, New Packaging
Today’s advocates rarely invoke Marx, but critics argue the philosophy survives under different branding: minimize marriage, blurring all lines of traditional gender and activity, detach sex from lifelong commitment, weaken parental authority, and expand the state’s role in children’s lives.

Sexual liberation is often celebrated as freedom from restraint. Yet history repeatedly asks an uncomfortable question: freedom for what? When every boundary is dismissed as oppression and every commitment as optional, freedom can become little more than the absence of responsibility. Society then spends billions trying to repair the damage that stable families once prevented—while congratulating itself on being “progressive.”

Conclusion
History shows that many revolutionary movements viewed the family as a rival institution because it fostered independent loyalties, religious faith, and personal responsibility. Experiments in communal living, collective child-rearing, and sexual liberation promised utopia but rarely delivered lasting stability. The truth is, that it is a FAILURE!

The traditional family may not be perfect—no institution created by imperfect people ever is. Sex is a gift from God, but it comes with responsibility. Basic morals, and self-evident reality, after centuries of social experiments, remains remarkably resilient. There is an old saying: if something has worked for thousands of years, perhaps it deserves more respect than the latest revolutionary theory fresh from the college faculty lounge.