I am curious if the majority of leftist people don’t actually want children haha. There doesn’t seem to be any studies about it, but my convos with leftists is that most don’t seem to want to have children either for the uncertainty of the future or because they are too expensive or because it wouldn’t give them too much time to organize or whatever other reason that I forgot about.
I personally lean on not having children because I have been laid off of several jobs and having someone financially dependent to me scares the shit out of me and would put my stress levels through the roof.
I’m a partial anti-natalist (only partially) but I don’t hate children, ofc. And I do think that globally speaking, a falling birth rate is a major problem.
In regards to having children, I got a vasectomy over a year ago, and my Girl never wants to have biological children.
I almost definitely never want to have any children, period. But I wouldn’t be completely against adoption, after we move to Chengdu one day.
But that would take decades’ worth of personal growth/change from me.
I don’t mean this as an insult at all, but I thought that Marxism and anti-natalism were opposite ideologies
They are. Anti-Natalism cannot function with a material view of the world since it views the world through a lens that rejects the purely material conception. Socialism is also pro-worker so if you think humans shouldn’t exist ideologically then you also think that of workers and couldn’t be a socialist
Anti-natalism doesn’t reject material reality, and as I said, only partial anti-natalism.
You’re being dogmatic and immaterial.
I also never said that humans shouldn’t or don’t deserve to exist. That’s different than anti-natalism. Anti-natalism means that it’s inherently selfish to biologically have children. But just because something is selfish, doesn’t automatically make a bad or simple thing.
There are two different viewpoints on this. One is the one you are mentioning which holds that having children is something selfish that you do for yourself. There are a number of arguments for this view such as the personal fulfillment many people get from raising a child, having more people around you who love you and who can take care of you when you are older, and of course getting to “pass on” something of yourself. In that sense it makes sense for some people to view it as selfish.
The opposite view however would argue that it is actually selfish not to have children, since children are necessary for the perpetuation of society. This too makes sense: By having children you are doing something good for society, adding to your community another person who can help make that community better while potentially (depending on how much of a burden you view taking care of a child as) giving up some of your other goals in life as you are sacrificing your own time and resources.
Both views exist and i don’t think we should be arguing about who is right and who is wrong. Ultimately this is a personal choice and it has no relation to being or not being a good socialist. The duty of a socialist society is to help with all possible means those who do choose to have children, providing them with all that they need to raise a family, while also respecting the choice of those who don’t and making sure they too are taken care of by the larger “family” of society.
Quoted for Truth
Being against people having children and viewing it as a selfish act in of itself, devoid of any context inherently upholds the view that humans shouldn’t exist. The whole foundation of the ideology has to led to that position.
Did I say devoid of any context? And that’s a ridiculous strawman that I won’t bother giving even the tiniest bit of credence.
Yes, you literally did. You referred to the ideology which posits itself as universal in any commonly understood and used context.
Removed by mod
They aren’t. At least not in a reasonable interpretation