no, but a small sliver of mostly white "leftists" have picked up malthusianism but this largely exists due to their misunderstanding of reality, like yt supremacists they just accept the "not enough room for more people" lie of Imperialism
I have heard that from some, but from most I am told that it is due to global warming and the high cost of living.
Life: submit to capitalism, you're powerless to change anything, the planet is baking, sometimes there are treats, two full time incomes required to survive, everything is poison, it's only going to get worse
Me: you know who would like this? Children
Yeah those things require revolution to fix
Do we allow the bourgeoisie to practice eugenics on our classes or do we fight back?
If you think we can revolution why not have kids? I'm saying this only if such worries are preventing you from having kids that you would want to have otherwise. I understand it's not for everyone but I want to push back on people who've accepted defeat.
Do we allow the bourgeoisie to practice eugenics on our classes or do we fight back?
we fight, but we don't have the right to conscript children into that fight.
Easy for you to say when your people aren't actively subjected to genocide. The people who fight for their children's futures have little trust in the leadership of people who've already given up.
Sorry, are you suggesting that people subjected to genocide have a responsibility to produce new child soldiers for the cause? It's by no means "easy" for anyone to look at the material conditions of their environment and decide that they don't want to personally subject new people to those conditions.
Birth rates declining as education, income, medical care, and women's equality increase are well documented sociological phenomena across history. There's no need to reduce the phenomena to idealist anecdotes centering around the political affiliation of individual people you've encountered online.
No I'm saying nations under genocidal conditions are going to have kids because they want their society to continue, it's nothing about soldiers and I really don't like that you would reduce the will to survive genocide as "creating soldiers". Should Palestinians give up children not knowing if they'll be bombed tomorrow? Do you shame, pity them for having more kids? Why should they let Israel succeed in killing the idea of Palestinians?
Reproductive labor is necessary labor for society to function. People having less kids because they can focus resources towards fewer children, those conditions only exist for the Imperialist and bourgeois strata. For most of the world having many kids is necessary for the survival of the community.
I wouldn’t urge Palestinians to avoid having children, nor would I encourage them to try to outbreed their captivity. It’s none of my business. It should be exclusively their business. I’ll tell you if I lived in Palestine, there’s no way in hell I’d personally bring a child into those conditions no matter what anybody else thought about it.
My point is that whether or not to reproduce is a deeply personal choice that shouldn’t be viewed as a social responsibility or a political act.
The idea that individuals (by which people always really mean women) have a political responsibility to reproduce and expand their culture is reactionary shit. The only population whose breeding habits I have a political opinion about is white settlers, because I’m a white settler. I’m not having kids, because white genocide is unironically good, Euro-American settler culture is a blight on the world, and our extinction as an artificial racial category is a prerequisite for global decolonization.
I'm saying nations under genocidal conditions are going to have kids because they want their society to continue, i
and those kids grow up where, under what conditions? My childhood wasn't nearly as shitty as what palestinians are made to endure and decades on I would still have rather been an abortion. it is out of compassion for their suffering that i suggest having kids in dire circumstances is immoral because of what you're knowingly forcing someone to live through.
Do you shame, pity them for having more kids?
i feel bad for the people who have to live that life. i feel bad for parents who didn't have the right to choose. i endorse the destruction of the oppressor state and the (trial if you have enough stability to have them) execution of the perpetrators of apartheid and genocide.
Why should they let Israel succeed in killing the idea of Palestinians?
why is the idea of some cultural group worth the suffering of my children? Oppressed people have a morally righteous fight against our oppressors, but condemning another person to live under that oppression is not righteous.
people are people and if i can choose not to condemn someone to a life of suffering why should I value a group identity over my child's quality of life? I wouldn't subject a child to life here and we even have running water.
no hedonistic pleasures or satisfaction from achievement could make my torture worthwhile, how the fuck is it OK to subject someone to far worse than what i've had?
This is clearly the words of someone who has no community or culture to cling to, one born nation-less and with a position to lose. For me contributing to my community in what's necessary of me benefits everyone and all children. For colonized peoples there is a collective worth protecting as it protects ourselves as individuals.
It's honestly sounding like you have internalized individualism. Like I said it's fine to not want children and to not have them, but know that people having children is necessary for your survival, and you have a role to play in the survival of their children.
Everyone has a role to play as we are social beings. Our society as structured alienates us from the benefits of socialized production but these conditions are definite and mutable. Have some revolutionary optimism.
I’ll put it bluntly because there’s a lot of assumptions that are easy to make when you’re talking in English on a primarily American platform, and maybe there’s some misunderstanding about the conditions people in this conversation are actually living in:
If you’re a white American, you have no culture or nation worth reproducing or clinging to. If you’re a white American and you believe that you, your children, and your fellow enlightened settler whites will usher in a revolution in the United States of America in your lifetime: that’s not revolutionary optimism, it’s delusional cosplay. The only revolutionary role that a white settler can play on colonized land is to betray his fellow settlers and work toward the destruction of their empire. Communism will be built on the grave of this empire by those who come after.
I've written in my comments that my people are colonized and subject to genocide, I'm not a white settler, I'm Black. I understand the outlook that settlers have a false nation unworthy of upholding, I agree, but I do not think they need to be stripped of living their lives as human beings in the manner they choose as long as it fits the framework of Decolonization.
I comment on my predictions and expectations of settlers a lot, this time I'm on the optimistic side that we'd hope for more settlers to be deeply concerned about the future generations. It's fucked up for settlers to come here, trash the place, and when it comes time to clean up they'd rather die out than join the multi generational effort to fix this place. We don't plan for their help but it would be a quicker process with more hands. 🤷🏽♀️
Decolonization also means restoring the humanity of the colonizers.
Albeit not peacefully 😏
My apologies then, for approaching your comments without the appropriate context in mind. I don’t mean to suggest that I think settlers have no responsibility to the future (I haven’t killed myself after all). I hope to do everything I can to leave a better world for other people’s kids than my parents left for me. Without getting too deep into personal detail, my parents come from generations of white American evangelicals. My parents’ decision to have kids was not a net positive for the world or for their kids. If I ever unexpectedly find myself with the means to provide a decent life for someone beyond my own immediate survival, I’ll consider adopting.
It's honestly sounding like you have internalized individualism. Like I said it's fine to not want children and to not have them, but know that people having children is necessary for your survival, and you have a role to play in the survival of their children.
if other people putting children in harm's way is necessary for my survival then i would prefer not to survive and for the cycle of suffering to end with me. there's no social unit worth damning generations of children to lifetimes of suffering and bitter struggle.
Have some revolutionary optimism.
fight now and maybe having a kid later won't be equivalent to putting them through hell, but in the meantime we have no moral standing for conscription.
“Just give up to genocide already, it will hurt less in the long term.”
So you just think colonized colonized people should just collectively choose to end their own cultures and stop existing?
i think that oppressed people should fight back against their oppression but we do not have the right to bring children into dire circumstances and conscript them into a fight they did not and could not consent to.
If a monster is beating down your door and you can't defeat it on your own you shouldn't push a kid into its jaws. The monster should stop, but it won't. The other villages should come make the monster stop but they won't. Feeding more children to the monster is not in line with any of our other morals.
why are you so set on defending the conscription of children?
I’m not defending conscription of children. I’m defending colonized people’s right to continue having children as both an act of resistance and a way to further your own culture rather than giving up to the genociders. Your argument implies Palestinians and First Nations people are morally wrong for having children as they are actively genocided.
. I’m defending colonized people’s right to continue having children as both an act of resistance and a way to further your own culture
what right does someone have to make someone else's life their act of resistance? how is that not literally conscription?
The problem here is that you are using a individualist idealist perspective. We Marxists do not follow moralistic lines of reasoning. Morals are arbitrary and idealistic while we live in a material world. Marx didn’t say taking surplus value was immoral, he knew no matter what he thought that socialism was inevitable because of objective material class struggle. You are using the morals of a sad westerner with no apparent culture, influenced by individualistic thought to condemn oppressed peoples who care about the their own culture that is under attack.
If it is immoral to have children that will live poorly then shouldn’t the whole global south be sterilized? This is a generic Malthusian position, but instead of being racist or thinking humans are themselves totally bad, you just think having children who will suffer is immoral. Shouldn’t this lead to the entire proletariat committing collective suicide, no, rich people aren’t happy other, maybe they shouldn’t be allowed to reproduce either. How about humanity just commits collective suicide because life inevitably includes some sort of suffering no matter the material conditions? Are you going to condemn the prey animals for having kids that will be eaten, next? Maybe the universe should just be dead considering every living being suffers.
I doubt you’d take your argument to that extreme so let’s examine why. Essential in the Malthusian view is the illusion that humanity and nature are separate. Many think people should stop having kids or simply die because they “care about the environment.” However, we are a part of nature. Pure unchanging nature is a myth. We emerged from nature and remain natural beings. We are no different in essence than something like a rabbit. We should seek balance with it as a part of it.
I hope you understand the absurdity of your argument now.
then shouldn’t the whole global south be sterilized? This is a generic Malthusian position
no and i have never suggested such a thing. There is plenty to go around if it were distributed equitably and i don't dispute that. Local scarcity might be an immediate cause of suffering but there are plenty of way to suffer incredibly that don't go away even in the lap of luxury.
Shouldn’t this lead to the entire proletariat committing collective suicide, no, rich people aren’t happy other, maybe they shouldn’t be allowed to reproduce either. How about humanity just commits collective suicide because life inevitably includes some sort of suffering no matter the material conditions?
what is so valuable about the idea of us that some nebulous group is worth the suffering of billions? If you mean mass suicide, no, ending a life is quite different from not beginning one and is quite difficult to weigh the dramatically increased suffering of a botch against the relatively known quantity of continuing to live despite the intractable misery. If you're hyperbolizing a dwindling population as "suicide" i'm not sure what the problem is, the last few folks might get bored but they definitely don't have the right to force others to suffer for their benefit.
Are you going to condemn the prey animals for having kids that will be eaten, next? Maybe the universe should just be dead considering every living being suffers.
i don't think there's much evidence for the suggestion that non-human animals make that sort of complex moral analysis or have any sort of metacognitive introspection. Survival "strategies" come in a huge variety and while there are some species who refuse to breed in captivity but I don't think that stress response is done with any moral calculus. I'm sure there are 2nd generation animals in terrible zoo conditions that would prefer to have never been born, if they were in fact capable of having any preference on the matter.
I don't really know what a "dead universe" is or how you're valuing something about the mere existence of living beings so much that it is worth causing literally all of the suffering that ever happens.
So you are still sticking with saying Palestinians should not be allowed to reproduce. You are calling for submission to genocide. If no Palestinians had children there would be no Palestine fighting today.
i don't know where this "not be allowed" is coming from, there's no possible legitimate authority that could enforce that and there's certainly no ethical way to criminalize having children. It's unethical and/or harmful to do all sorts of relatively mundane things like drink to excess, be rude to wage workers, cheat on a closed partnership, cut in line etc and yet these things are rarely made illegal and it doesn't go well when states try to.
i don't understand what's so valuable about a group identity that it excuses conscription and nobody has even tried to address that. It's a choice for the living to fight oppression, and i think fighting is the right choice, but forcing someone into a war against their will is a terrible thing to do. we recognize that when it's conscription of young men, we even recognize it in science fiction with critical takes on clone armies, why is it any different for making new living beings the old fashioned way?
We should make life as equitable as possible for the people condemned to it but you don't need to force more people to live and suffer to build communism.
You didn’t get my point about moralism did you.
no and i have never suggested such a thing.
I was simply extending your logic to its logical conclusion. Sure you didn’t say you supported real policy to sterilize people but you did condemn people for having children, thus suggesting it would be preferable had they not had children and sterilization is a way to make that happen. You are trying to make a difference between having children during wartime and having children that suffer as is inherent to the human condition, but who are you to make that distinction. You are a moral relativist, some suffering is worse than other suffering and actions can have different moral implications depending on circumstance. Where is the threshold between suffering being too bad to reproduce and not? What would you say to someone who considers all suffering equally bad or all child having to be equally bad, let alone thinking there is a moral imperative to reproduce when under genocidal attack? This is the problem with moralistic thinking, it’s all subjective and not based in material reality. How do you know Palestinians would regret being born? I’m sure a lot of them find meaning in keeping their culture alive and fighting for what is right. It’s not conscription because they don’t have to fight, they may choose to fight for what’s right tho. You don’t know if the child you have will regret being born or not. Why let the possible negative stop you from doing something? If we do that we’ll never do anything.
If you mean mass suicide, no, ending a life is quite different from not beginning one and is quite difficult to weigh the dramatically increased suffering
By “collective suicide” I do not mean necessarily everyone actually kill’s themselves, I mean everyone chooses for their group to stop existing by not reproducing. If you’re not going to make more people to live to produce communism then you’re never going to have communism. I don’t mean one should impose their ideology on to their kids, but struggles don’t end in a generation. People aren’t going to stop having kids whatever you want.
i don’t understand what’s so valuable about a group identity that it excuses conscription and nobody has even tried to address that.
Once again, you are coming from a western individualist perspective without recognizing it. It’s different for the people you are condemning. Their morals are not the morals your specific context gave you.
Your response does not adequately address the questions I pose in the previous comment at all. All you’re saying is “I didn’t say what my statement’s logical conclusion that you are criticizing was.” Please reread it.
The problem here is that you are using a individualist idealist perspective. We Marxists do not follow moralistic lines of reasoning. Morals are arbitrary and idealistic while we live in a material world. Marx didn’t say taking surplus value was immoral, he knew no matter what he thought that socialism was inevitable because of objective material class struggle. You are using the morals of a sad westerner with no apparent culture, influenced by individualistic thought to condemn oppressed peoples who care about the their own culture that is under attack.
Once again, you are coming from a western individualist perspective without recognizing it. It’s different for the people you are condemning. Their morals are not the morals your specific context gave you
are you so relativist when it comes to child abuse? there are cultures where it's normal to pierce the ears of infants, or worse. If we cannot say that violating the bodily autonomy of a child is bad then what the fuck are you even doing?
If you’re not going to make more people to live to produce communism then you’re never going to have communism. I don’t mean one should impose their ideology on to their kids, but struggles don’t end in a generation
this is conscription
People aren’t going to stop having kids whatever you want.
i have no illusion about that and we should pursue the best possible world for those of us with the misfortune of being condemned to live in it.
was simply extending your logic to its logical conclusion.
obviously I don't agree with your "logical conclusion". i'm sure there are debatelord terms for the specific way of making shit up that you committed but I'll just reiterate that there are loads of "wrong" things where trying to use the state to enforce morality would incur a greater harm. It being legal to cheat on a partner isn't an endorsement of cheating or a denial of the harm caused, but there's no way morality police wouldn't be worse. The most we could or should do about natal conscription is cultivate mores against it.
You still don’t get my point about moralistic arguments. You are still using idealist reasoning, and others using similar reasoning might come to different conclusions. You’re imposing your own assumptions on others in a different context. Marxists are supposed to be materialists not idealists. We do not debate in the realm of morals.
i find it very difficult to believe that someone with queer in their name would be a staunch moral relativist.
what's the non-idealist argument against harming another person for no reason? you've almost certainly read more marx than i have.
i find it very difficult to believe that someone with queer in their name would be a staunch moral relativist.
Pointing out the dominant moral paradigm does not make me have no opinions. My opinion on this issue comes first from the facts that patriarchy is justified with idealist logic, while if you do much beyond surface level analysis it’s clear there are not true binaryness in sex or ascribed gender characteristics and historically there have been different gender systems, and that gender oppression is materially tied with class oppression, and secondarily because I believe that oppression is bad thanks to many material affects on my consciousness I do not fully understand.
what’s the non-idealist argument against harming another person for no reason?
Morality and emotions are historically constructed, so idk exactly, but as empathetic beings we generally don’t like to see people hurt. One Randian semi-materialist argument that comes to mind is that one wouldn’t hurt people randomly because that will generally have negative social implications for thonself, and harm them in the long run.
Hurting someone for no reason is very different from birthing someone who might suffer if that’s what you’re pointing to. If anything the average psychological pain might be less than an alienated westerner like you, considering the benefits of solidarity and documented improvements in mental health during war.
you’ve almost certainly read more marx than i have.
I’m flattered, though I’ve only read like two OG Marx works. I’ve read more Engels and Mao along with listening to RevLeft and people on here.
So you are still sticking with saying Palestinians should not be allowed to reproduce. You are calling for submission to genocide. If no Palestinians had children there would be no Palestine fighting today.
What an incredibly rude and ridiculous statement. The very fact you would say something like that only points to me that you are far more annoying than any child I’ve ever been around.
I thought in such a way when my kid was before his first year. Now I love to spend time with him.
This is true of course, because kids are people, and people are annoying as hell. When you choose to be responsible for the life of another person, you sure as hell better be prepared for a little irritation.
If someone is annoyed by people in general then they need to get over themselves. I have no other advice in such a situation
I guess I can only envy your life being so utterly free of irritating personal interactions that the mere thought of someone else experiencing one compels you to seek them out to personally scold them
Having irritating personal interactions doesn’t allow one to blanketly have a negative opinion of humanity. Finding all of humanity annoying is a conservative thought line Hint: i when it’s everyone else, it’s normally not everyone else
I don’t have a blanket negative opinion of humanity. I have a blanket neutral opinion of humanity. Many individual people are irritating. Many individual people are wonderful. Some are both. Kids have these same attributes because they’re people that are, by definition, learning everything for the first time.
I promise I’m not trying to smuggle in some secret “those people/kids are bad” rhetoric, if that’s what you’re inferring. I’m irritated at myself for mistakes I made yesterday. Kids are literally making mistakes constantly, because that’s how humans learn. It’s extremely easy to be irritated by tiny people that fuck up constantly. Kids require patience and empathy all day every day. Perhaps it’s fine to let people that recognize they’re not well suited to provide that self-select out of a lifelong responsibility for childcare?
Okay, good. Sorry, maybe I misinterpreted what you were trying to say and didn’t read it correctly. My apologies
And what right have you to state agreement with a comment saying that kids are annoying? Shall it be fine with you when people make comments calling other groups annoying based off of their unchosen characteristics?
Because they are, and people can find different things annoying? I love snakes, but if somebody dislikes snakes and chooses not to keep them as a pet (most people) I am not going to think negatively of them as long as they aren't going out of their way to harm snakes.
It's fairly bizarre to think everyone has to find the same things annoying as you.
I will assume you are legitimately asking in good faith as this is a fairly common bingo we hear a lot.
Someone's age and the way they act is not the same as their sexuality. That should go without saying, but you would be surprised.
People tend to find children annoying because of...the behaviour of children, unsurprisingly. Whether that is the crying, the demand for attention, the manipulation, the risk of damage (to themselves, me or my possessions, or others). Those are regardless of race, gender, sexuality, etc.
Doesn't mean I actively wish ill on them; quite the contrary, I respect them as much as I would the life and livelihood of any other human. I just made the choice to have nothing to do with them. My partner is the same, so it's never been a particularly big issue for us. We just don't go to places where there are likely to be kids, and everyone is happy. Do I expect that in some public places there will probably be children sometimes? If it's an appropriate venue, yeah I just have to deal with it.
And if someone says they are annoyed by the behavior of LGBT people then it is justified in the same way?
I was not stating agreement. I was just mentioning that is another reason that I have been given. But, everyone has the right to find annoying whatever they want though 🤣
I personally don't feel the need to procreate. But I don't think it's a left wing issue. Many comrades in our party do want kids or have kids it seems.
My understanding is that there's a trend in fundamental Christianity, here in the US anyway, where people think it's their duty to have as many children as possible. That said, there's also a good chunk of people who come from those upbringings who become very progressive minded, defeating the whole effort.
That is a thing in all abrahamic religions because what i heard is that Jews and Muslims also think is their duty to god to be “fruitful” and multiply.
Note: I put fruitful in quotation marks because that is the biblical term
Sounds right. I'm just referring to fundamentalist Christians in particular because they're the sort I see in the US that push the concept. Most other people seem to aim for 2-3 as the ideal number of kids, or don't want any. Or they just don't plan one way or the other.
This belief came about simply because the religious sects that didn't promote reproduction died out.
For instance, Paul the Apostle advocated that celibacy was superior to marriage. Since early Christianity was an apocalyptic branch of Judaism that believed the end of the world would happen within believers' lifetimes (at which point Jesus would return to judge all), Paul considered it most important for believers to maintain absolute purity in preparation for judgement.
When that judgement day didn't come in time, sects that were celibate would obviously grow slower and be outcompeted by sects that advocated childbirth. This has created the religious landscape today, where new children are the predominant way religions grow.
Some sources:
- https://youtu.be/SwohpJU1Tco
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Childfree here, and I think it might be a side effect of having to do a lot of thinking about society against the current.
Having children is a lot of work that often gets romanticised and oversimplified, so once you look at it really hard it's no longer that obvious of a good decision. Sexist men also have no concept of how hard it is to both give birth to and raise a child, so if you're a man and generally think women deserve rights, I bet you'll be more conscious about that.
Buddy, you seem very concerned with this topic, and maybe you shouldn't be. Politics aren't really genetic.
I have a very lax attitude towards kids, I don't think of it in any larger terms beyond what it is: the responsibility of having a kid.
Also, my wife is pregnant again. Too early to announce, but anti natalists owned once again.
I badly want to have (adopt) children. Baby fever has had me in its claws for years and years. The time isn't right yet in terms of my own emotional development and degree of rootedness. I also haven't found the right person or people to co-parent with. My boyfriend cried the other night because we could have been good parents together, but we're incompatible in some other long-term ways which make that unadvisable.
It's not for lack of wanting. I think there are more leftists with principled hang-ups around having kids that they don't feel able to work through under capitalism, but ultimately ours is an ideology of love that extends to the future and seems to me pro-children.
If it was up to me I'd have a bunch of kids and turn em all into commies
I am very childfree, can't stand being around children for more than five minutes. Had a vasectomy years and years ago. On the other hand, I am not necessarily anti-natalist, I don't begrudge other people wanting to have children for good reasons. For good reasons is the big caveat there though.
I definitely feel like I see more childfree people in leftist circles, but on the other hand I also see more folks who I think are prepared to be parents for good reasons and that would actually make good parents. As opposed to people who think it is their god-given duty to procreate or just do it "because that's what you do", which seem to be more common right-wing tropes.
Obviously that is generalizing to some degree, but just seems to be what I have noticed anecdotally.
Many parents are leftists because they care about their childrens’ future. I think the impression that rightists have more kids is because rich people can afford to have more kids while poor people can’t. There are also weird religious beliefs that many far right rich people have that make them think they need to have as many (white) kids as possible while prominent “leftist” rich people are often Malthusian.
I think its related to religion, not economic views. It just happens that religion is very intertwined with right wing politics.
An example, in my city the "old money" families are part of the opus dei catholic sect which promotes having lots of children. These families also are incentivized economically to do so, they need more kids to inherit their ever growing amount of property and land.
The world is awful, parenting is not easy, but ML gives me strength to overcome all this, protect my children, and in the future teach them sense of justice and ML to fight for a better world. Do not buy antynatalism bullshit, we need more educated and brave people!
Anti-natalism seems to be approaching certain fascist brainworms to me. I should certainly hope that no one here needs to be reminded that it’s a bullshit ideology
Not so obvious: Richard Stallman, while not fascist, is an antinatalist: https://stallman.org/articles/children.html
Maybe not left wing, but more likely to be socially liberal due to this stance generally goes against the social and cultural messaging, which considers having children to be a normal part of life and necessary to experience, or even mandatory as your duty as a human.
Anti-natalism as a result of being treated like shit by their parents seems to be a common occurrence I have noticed.
or from suffering for any reason at all, figuring out how bad capitalism actually is. and deciding that it's wrong to force someone to live here.
Antinatalism refers to those who oppose having kids on principal. If it’s for monetary reasons then it isn’t antinatalism
The way I see it, we probably won't see communism victorious in our own lifetimes. That being the case, why do we continue to struggle if not for our collective children?
