It’s basically the philosophy that it is wrong to have children. But what is the material cause to this belief, along with other beliefs that antinatalists have? (including efilism, basically the philosophy that all life should end)
You must log in or register to comment.
Marx’s original critiques of Malthus are the relevant starting point here. Antinatalism is ultimately Malthusian overpopulation theory updated for today. It allows the right-wing to individualise the problem rather than admit that plenty of normal people can live if capitalism dies. Your child has a carbon footprint and we should focus on that instead of the US military’s or Exxon’s. The state won’t be able to save your child from what’s coming because it isn’t the state’s job to, they’re just born2be unworthy poors who are Calvinistically destined to die in the near future.
I don’t have kids, don’t want kids, and wouldn’t want to subject a kid to the same conditions I’m militantly against. That’s just a personal choice though. Giving it more attention or weight than that only reinforces the machine making those conditions. When it turns out that my choice to not have kids wasn’t enough to save me financially or save the planet, well I’m just a stupid surplus human who should skip breakfast and recycle more plastic. There’s no point where that makes an actual dent in the problem and there’s no point where that eugenicist logic can’t be turned against me just as easily.
Its the politics of those who see the issues in society as being caused by the working class breeding too much.
Its a petite-bougie mindset usually found in the brains of liberal nepo babies with a surplus who get spooked by poverty.
That’s not really accurate. What you’re describing is the movement against “overpopulation.” That movement often uses concerns about resource shortages as a backdoor into eugenics and upholding the current liberal order.
Antinatalists aren’t worried about those concerns, primarily. Their argument is that because all life experiences suffering, creating life is inherently cruel and immoral. IMHO that argument has some overlap with Marxism in that it’s an egalitarian concern for all people in society.
Id disagree personally, ive always read anti-natalists as being more in the doomer/neitzche type of vibe, which is more pre-occupied with defeatism.
I see marxism as a optimistic ideology, its the anti-thesis of this idea. Sure, we want to get rid of the nuclear family, but we dont want to get rid of the family. Cant support workers without supporting single mothers, cant be a communist without wanting every child fed.
The question shouldnt be ‘life is suffering, how can we end it’ but ‘how can we improve life’
That’s a fair question, but “Ensuring that fewer people experience suffering by creating fewer people” is a completely fair answer. It just rubs people the wrong way because it runs up against our unscientific, irrational need to reproduce
I dunno, that just kinda sounds like it could easily turn into eugenics.
Id rather just let people breed as they want and then just build housing to facilitate the projected growth with a surplus; trying to legislate births just leads to a lot of unforseen consequences.
I dont think its irrational to want to reproduce, its literally one of the most biologically rational desires. Its fine if people dont, but to call the act of reproduction irrational is a strange take.
What does “biologically rational” mean?
Do you mean “This is what’s rational for me, as an organism” ? Seems to me that a lot of self-serving behavior could be classified as “biologically rational.”
But as Marxists, do we not strive to transcend that kind of short-term, isolationist thinking? Do we not try to take a long view, grounded in compassion and egalitarianism?
So, too, do the antinatalists. Both groups understand that you can’t have a society if the only people you care about are your kin. That is to say, “biological rationalism”-- whatever that is-- has no place in Marxism
Theoretically yes, and i did read such antinatalists, but many of them when questioned further inevitably express neomalthusian sentiments. As in, it’s not exclusive and actually very close to one another and the overlap is high.
Yes, there are some folks who overlap, but it’s not inevitable. There are principled antinatalists who don’t want anything to do with the Malthusians. David Benatar is a good example. His question is, “is it moral to create a being that can & will suffer?” That’s a question that has nothing to do with the size of the population/resources.
Maybe I’ve just had an absolutely terrible experience with antinatalists, but I notice a lot of them are also incredibly ableist and misogynistic. I’ve seen a lot of them hurl the most sexist crap at pregnant women and basically call for eugenics towards neurodivergent people.
Antinatalism to me is pretty much the antithesis of progress, it literally calls for the extinction of humanity as a solution to life’s problems.
what is the material cause to this belief
People not being able to afford to live with dignity themselves acknowledging they’re even less likely to afford it when they have to take care of a child or children.
I think “I can’t afford to take good care of a kid” is different from
style “DAE crotch spawn noisy babies annoying” stuff you see from anti-natalists.It could be nice but I can’t afford it =/ Nobody should have kids because it is wrong.
A lot of it is cope twisting itself into an aspect of one’s personality, essentially justifying your lack of options as a preference or Malthusian ideology. The mind twists it from “it is impossible to have a baby and I am required to be okay with this” into either “I HATE BABIES AND WANT THEM THROWN INTO THE SUN” or “you are a loser and a bad person for having a baby.”
The takes that antinatalists have are very similar to the takes that schoolkids have about which game console is better for a reason. The capitalist system won’t allow you to come to grips with it as a deliberate failure of a system which must be overthrown violently, it is only allowed to be a consumptive preference.
The connection you’re missing is general environmental anxiety so it’s “the average person does not have the means to raise a child” + “the human environment is changing for the worse in the near future” = “it’s wrong for people to have kids”
Afaik the “dae crotch goblins” came about die to a good old echo chamber
You don’t even need to be a Marxist to see the basic problem with the logic of antinatalism. Not everybody regrets being born. In fact, I am doubtful that even a majority of people really regret being born, though I could be wrong.
This is my analysis of it, and I call myself Marxist. I’ve never seen a Marxist author delve into this subject specifically.
Antinatalism, as I understand, is an ethical imperative with an argument that goes like, “capitalism is a monstrous system, and I wouldn’t want to bring another human to this planet to suffer”. I will assume this is antinatalism in the context you brought.
First, suffering cannot be avoided. All humans, hell, all beings suffer. For one reason or another. Suffering is a part of living. But it’s not the only part. I feel antinatalists are nihilists out of touch with the beauty of life. Even in the most extreme circumstances humans face, there is still something to live for. Slaves can love one another, have admiration, respect, companionship or friendships with their fellow enslaved, shared hope for liberty, etc. Even under extreme examples of suffering, you can find something in life that is a valuable experience.
Second, having more kids, having less kids, having no kids, it makes no difference in the outcome of things. While a single antinatalist proclaims moral superiority because they don’t have children, millions of people are constantly having children daily anyways. Our social system will continue reproducing the capitalist mode of production irrespective of your choice of having children.
Honestly, if you are
- able to sustain yourself and a partner economically, and even better if the partner also contributes too,
- able to dedicate a larger part of your time on the life of a child than your own
- able to handle your own frustrations and the frustration of others
then you should have children in my opinion. Or adopt children, if that’s not possible. I’m the opposite of antinatalist. Because your children will have a much better education with parents who study Marxism and are sensible to exploitation, to the struggles of the working class and the contradictions of the capitalist system. It’s quite obvious, if communists have more children, they will tend to have a larger generation of people educated as communists. The trouble is trying to handle being a worker/small owner, a mother and a party militant, unless all those aspects of your life were a single thing. Like Black Panther Party militant mothers.
In some instances, like in the cases of an ethnically persecuted population, having more children is actually a reasonable form of resistance.
Reading the other comments and a quick google. Here’s my take: I disagree with Antinatalism
- Even when communist society is finally achieved, life can simply find new ways to screw you over.
- No kids makes no difference on the outcome. You’re basically fucked either way either from capitalist exploitation or some other shit life gives you.
Broke: anti-natalism
Woke: Russian cosmism meets marxism
“I am certain that the time will come when science will become all-powerful, that it will be able to recreate a deceased organism. I am certain that the time will come when one will be able to use the elements of a person’s life to recreate the physical person. And I am certain that when that time will come, when the liberation of mankind, using all the might of science and technology, the strength and capacity of which we cannot now imagine, will be able to resurrect great historical figures- and I am certain that when that time will come, among the great figures will be our comrade, Lev Iakovlevich.” (Who btw had the dopest eyeglasses known to man) - Leonid Krasin
All good comments for now, but let’s go a bit deeper
The singularity of Marxism in philosophy is to proclaim the age of transformative philosophy over purely interpretative philosophy. Efilism is part of that age of transformative philosophy, it aims at changing the ways of society.
However it compares very poorly to Marxism is that regard simply because people will continue to have kids anyway. Therefore it’s a utopian negation of reality. It has no praxis, no dialectics, just a singular moral imperative that is dictated by abstract logic and fuelled by individual suffering.
Therefore the Marxist analysis of these new moral ideas is simply: who tf cares lmao people won’t just stop having kids what are they talking about rofl
