not many culprits in this thread, but i feel i must bring this up. often leftists (and i will say, especially men) like to point at "material conditions" as more or less the sole reason for declining birthrates. often going as far to imply that the issue would simply go away (i.e. birthrates would return to what they were 100 odd years ago) if the right economic supports existed, or say, under a communist framework. this is not only a myopic view, it's reactionary and essentialises women basically to the right wing view of being broodmares for men. the reality that many leftists still need education on, is that when women are afforded more reproductive rights, and broadly, the freedom to choose their own path in life, they have less kids. this is a material reality. i won't argue that everyone being poorer isn't a factor in falling birthrates, but it is not the only one, and any future revolutionary project will have to grapple with the issue in more realistic and inventive ways than "improve material conditions and birthrates will return!" it's idealist and wildly misogynistic.
that's fine, just saying it's something future society will have to plan for and figure out. i don't have all the answers it just grinds my gears when men act like "just pay women and they will go back to having kids" is somehow a woke idea or even holds any water at all. not saying you were doing that, and like i said there are thankfully few culprits in this thread but i still have a bad taste in my mouth from the last couple struggle sessions about this.
Sorry but what is the issue to solve for actually? I don't even understand why declining birth rates would be a problem in the first place? There would just be less people around no?
Edit: oh I read another comment further down that sounded off on a few issues with population drops. Seems complicated, so I'll have to do some research.
When people say improve material conditions, I believe most are referring to making birth and raising a child essentially free.
I believe many socialist countries have had state funded childcare, and obviously many have socialized medicine. This allowed women to both work and have children.
Yeah, as women gain more autonomy and reproductive rights, the birthrate will go down, but we should at least make it as easy as possible for those who do want children.
Anecdotally, I know three couples who want to have children, and all of them say they can't because they can't afford it. They all had to move back in with their parents, too. I can't help but feel money plays a major role here because it creates a barrier of entry to those who do want kids.
Then again, anecdotally, to your point, my wife and I can afford children but simply don't want any. We aren't the only ones.
not something i have much knowledge on unfortunately, would love to read a proper Marxist/sociological analysis of the phenomenon though. i have a copy of Women, Family and the Russian Revolution that's high on my list, perhaps it will hit that topic.
It's also a view that does not match reality. The material conditions are much worse in most nations in the global south and raising kids is more difficult, yet people in these countries are still having lots of children. In fact, one might obverse that the opposite is true, the more wealthier countries and societies are having the least amount of kids. So "improving the material conditions" by giving people access to education, birth control, etc has resulted in less people having children, as you already said.
While I don't know why that is, I'd guess that a clash between traditional patriarchical values and more modern egalitarian values could be at play. Creates a dissonance that leads to long term relationships failing or not even being considered as an option in these societies.
I don't know in general, but especially when moving from rural to more industrial/city based work, the incentive to reproduce is different. Traditionally, having children has been seen as beneficial in rural economies because the family is building its labor force, and the family works together as a unit to provide more stability overall. Wage labor in cities is more individualized and doesn't require the family unit to achieve a singular goal together, so children begin to be viewed as a drain rather than a benefit.
Exactly, the priorities of women have changed with their entrance into the professional workforce. Society has not kept up with how this changes the incentives regarding children, has not rectified the fact that having children is detrimental to professional careers for women.
birthrates would return to what they were 100 odd years ago
what is severely misunderstood about "birthrates 100 years ago" or "developing country birthrates" on both the left and right is that it isn't individual economic pressures that guide the explosions in population we see with industrialization. there aren't rural masses that are mass migrating to urban centers anymore. we already have the sanitation improvements that made phenomenal growth possible in those cities. unless you take it all away, kill everyone excess of 1860s numbers, you can't fucking do it again with the same tools!
I tried to do some quick research on this, and all of the rhetoric was very grow the economy focused. I didn't find any compelling arguments on why population decline would be an issue. Any reading you recommend?
I saw that there was a lot of estimates and concerns like half a century out, but is half a century out even considered "sudden"? Like the number of people we have right now is very arbitrary right? So why is it so important we maintain it?
Yeah that makes sense. But yeah it definitely does feel a little cart before the horse though in regards to all of the impending doom scenarios we have actively unfolding lol
not many culprits in this thread, but i feel i must bring this up. often leftists (and i will say, especially men) like to point at "material conditions" as more or less the sole reason for declining birthrates. often going as far to imply that the issue would simply go away (i.e. birthrates would return to what they were 100 odd years ago) if the right economic supports existed, or say, under a communist framework. this is not only a myopic view, it's reactionary and essentialises women basically to the right wing view of being broodmares for men. the reality that many leftists still need education on, is that when women are afforded more reproductive rights, and broadly, the freedom to choose their own path in life, they have less kids. this is a material reality. i won't argue that everyone being poorer isn't a factor in falling birthrates, but it is not the only one, and any future revolutionary project will have to grapple with the issue in more realistic and inventive ways than "improve material conditions and birthrates will return!" it's idealist and wildly misogynistic.
deleted by creator
that's fine, just saying it's something future society will have to plan for and figure out. i don't have all the answers it just grinds my gears when men act like "just pay women and they will go back to having kids" is somehow a woke idea or even holds any water at all. not saying you were doing that, and like i said there are thankfully few culprits in this thread but i still have a bad taste in my mouth from the last couple struggle sessions about this.
Sorry but what is the issue to solve for actually? I don't even understand why declining birth rates would be a problem in the first place? There would just be less people around no?
Edit: oh I read another comment further down that sounded off on a few issues with population drops. Seems complicated, so I'll have to do some research.
Even the chuds implicitly acknowledge this when they mention overpopulation. The only reason they care about birth rates falling is their racism
When people say improve material conditions, I believe most are referring to making birth and raising a child essentially free.
I believe many socialist countries have had state funded childcare, and obviously many have socialized medicine. This allowed women to both work and have children.
Yeah, as women gain more autonomy and reproductive rights, the birthrate will go down, but we should at least make it as easy as possible for those who do want children.
Anecdotally, I know three couples who want to have children, and all of them say they can't because they can't afford it. They all had to move back in with their parents, too. I can't help but feel money plays a major role here because it creates a barrier of entry to those who do want kids.
Then again, anecdotally, to your point, my wife and I can afford children but simply don't want any. We aren't the only ones.
The Soviet Union broadly had low birth rates (positive connotation) due to this, right?
not something i have much knowledge on unfortunately, would love to read a proper Marxist/sociological analysis of the phenomenon though. i have a copy of Women, Family and the Russian Revolution that's high on my list, perhaps it will hit that topic.
It's also a view that does not match reality. The material conditions are much worse in most nations in the global south and raising kids is more difficult, yet people in these countries are still having lots of children. In fact, one might obverse that the opposite is true, the more wealthier countries and societies are having the least amount of kids. So "improving the material conditions" by giving people access to education, birth control, etc has resulted in less people having children, as you already said.
While I don't know why that is, I'd guess that a clash between traditional patriarchical values and more modern egalitarian values could be at play. Creates a dissonance that leads to long term relationships failing or not even being considered as an option in these societies.
I don't know in general, but especially when moving from rural to more industrial/city based work, the incentive to reproduce is different. Traditionally, having children has been seen as beneficial in rural economies because the family is building its labor force, and the family works together as a unit to provide more stability overall. Wage labor in cities is more individualized and doesn't require the family unit to achieve a singular goal together, so children begin to be viewed as a drain rather than a benefit.
Exactly, the priorities of women have changed with their entrance into the professional workforce. Society has not kept up with how this changes the incentives regarding children, has not rectified the fact that having children is detrimental to professional careers for women.
what is severely misunderstood about "birthrates 100 years ago" or "developing country birthrates" on both the left and right is that it isn't individual economic pressures that guide the explosions in population we see with industrialization. there aren't rural masses that are mass migrating to urban centers anymore. we already have the sanitation improvements that made phenomenal growth possible in those cities. unless you take it all away, kill everyone excess of 1860s numbers, you can't fucking do it again with the same tools!
deleted by creator
I tried to do some quick research on this, and all of the rhetoric was very grow the economy focused. I didn't find any compelling arguments on why population decline would be an issue. Any reading you recommend?
I saw that there was a lot of estimates and concerns like half a century out, but is half a century out even considered "sudden"? Like the number of people we have right now is very arbitrary right? So why is it so important we maintain it?
deleted by creator
Yeah that makes sense. But yeah it definitely does feel a little cart before the horse though in regards to all of the impending doom scenarios we have actively unfolding lol