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 had abusive parents, so I wouldn’t know where to begin with raising a kid. If I was even 1% as bad as they were I would consider myself a failure. Much better to just not bring someone into this world than to fuck them up as bad as I was, or fuck them up in strange new ways that I could never see coming.
I think I would’ve like having children in the future, but it just isn’t in the cards for me. I am “selfish” in that I don’t want to go through the “normal” process of having kids, and all other methods are incredibly unethical, at least under capitalism (I don’t know if they could ever be ethical).
Part of me would have liked to have kids but given the material conditions of my life it would have likely ended up as a miserable story.
Early in my life my parents were taught the lesson of precarity under capitalism. I picked up the lesson and I could never shake it. As I came to working age I knew that no matter how hard I worked chances were good that everything I had built up would be dashed away. I could see that there was no way I (or most most millennials without generational wealth) would ever own a home. My future was quite obviously to work hard so landlords, capitalists and petti bourgeoise could live comfortable lives. I didn’t put it in these terms at the time but wrecking my mental and physical health supporting the rich and producing one or more future laborers for capitalism to exploit seemed stupid. Instead I did personal austerity and worked as little as possible.
The only way to minimise your losses when you are forced to play a rigged game is to play as little as possible.
My lady never wanted kids for her own reasons and that’s fine with me.
I lean left like most intelligent people.
I do actually want a child, i know it’s hard. But several instances and things beyond my control and this current political climate. Absolutely not. And being almost too old, we’ll I guess it’s fast becoming not an option.
So on my soapbox for a minute.
Most liberals would actually have children, if you make the environment supportive of those who choose that option. Being in the US i can assure you, it’s exactly the opposite in this dumb country. It’s a liability, it’s cruel, its harsh. There’s barely any incentive beyond not having your bloodline die out.
Partner and I recently had our first kid, and it’s the best thing we’ve ever done. Also the most stressful.
We did wait though until our mid thirties, and that seems to be more normal now. I can’t imagine having a kid when my parents did, I don’t know how people can afford that now.
My gf and I want 2, but that’s a long time from now, and I’m uncertain if we’ll be able to stay together for that long and not be pulled apart by circumstances.
That’s perfectly valid. I was rather miserable for the large chunk of my adult life and I’m afraid I might somehow inflict that on my children too. I am not against adopting or taking care of my potential partner’s children in the future, if I sort my personal stuff. (:
I want kids but my girlfriend is unsure. I just really want to be a father and the responsibilities associated with it.
It is beautiful when your son/daughter utter the words father/mother. Mine did it yesterday
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 aren’t. At least not in a reasonable interpretation
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
I already cut my balls off, my wife wants to cut of hers too, but we live in a patriarchal society where men can choose what their do with their bodies while women need two kids to do the same.
I’m antinatalist, but don’t hate children. Would adopt, but my wife have not interest and isn’t something I care that much.
You aren’t a leftist if you are an anti-natalist. Anti-natalism is based on the assumption that life is more bad than good which is based on subjective views of the world (and has no basis in actual science). It’s not materialist. Secondly, anti-natalism is anti-human and therefore anti-worker. You cannot be a leftist anti-natalist much as you can’t be a leftist racist. Anti-natalism is extremely reactionary.
Anti-natalism isn’t inherently anti-human or anti-worker, that is laughable.
Yes, it is. Anti-natalism posits that people shouldn’t be born. That means they do not want people to be workers in the future, making it a reactionary anti-worker position to take.
That’s an extremely simplistic and slightly childish interpretation.
If anything, I despise the voluntary human extinction movement. That doesn’t preclude being smart about having biological children, and it sure as fuck doesn’t stop be from being a communist.
Having biological children is probably inherently selfish, but that doesn’t make having children an inherently bad or evil thing. That’s my entire point.
You aren’t a communist as you reject dialectical materialism by upholding an ideological framework that analyzes non-beings on the same level as beings. That’s not materialism but religion.
You’re a clown and I won’t dignify your nonsense word salad with a reply.
Ah yes, anything that you disagree with is “word salad”. What a fantastic way to analyze everything. I’m sure that will lead to correct understandings of the world…
I think its about concent, I don’t think you should force someone into life just because you want it.
Someone who doesn’t exist can’t give consent. That’s a non sequitur. See this for some general sense on the matter on the vibe that I have again the consent argument. There is an example on the thread that goes about rape and non-consent and that is a non-equivalence.
That’s doesn’t negate the lack of concent.
I don’t understand the fact that because someone exists, therefore it can’t concent so it’s dosen’t matter. Like, if we had technology for genetic manipulation, and someone who dosen’t exists so it’s can’t concent to be birth without eyes, arms and legs, so it would be OK to do it? Maybe the problem is more about branding, if I would say exactly the same without saying the word “antinatalist” nobody would bat an eye.
Again, consent doesn’t matter, as none can be given by this non-existing person. On the other hand, that is to be considered cruel and gratuitous.
Let’s just go on a tangent: we, humans, the apex of this planet, do play God quite often, and as such, we are the ones that draw the line on this type of stuff. See, for example, mice, which are used for bio studies for a myriad of ailments. So, the genetic engineering already exists. Most people just don’t realize it.
“But they are different species”. Yes, and mammals too. So similar to us, in fact, that we use them to study our diseases. We even “pre-bake” them with cancer, if it’s needed for research. Go closer to humans and stuff start to get wronger. Big apes are a no-go, Rhesus monkeys, on the other hand, need approval from bioethics boards. We draw the line where in the tree of life animals start to be too like us to matter.
So, why only be antinatalist and not vegan as well? Is human suffering the only thing that matters? I haven’t even considered invertebrates for that matter.
I’ll end this tangent about genetic engineering and speciecism here.
And no, antinatalism is not about branding. The whole ideology is moot. I do have friends who have this instance. I say it to their face that it is either defeatist, conservatist and, in general, a shit for brains idea. It’s just neomalthusianism, all over again. Here, have a link from Reddit on that.
And, as I like to say, again, to my friend’s face: go seek psychiatric and psychological help. Accepting this type of ideology is, in my own experience being on that side of the argument, a symptom of depression. You see life as completely sad and full of woe, when it’s just so much more.
You’re being a complete tool and douchebag to driving_crooner.
A Reddit link was detected in your comment. Here are links to the same location on alternative frontends that protect your privacy.
Someone who doesn’t exist doesn’t have the ability to consent so the fact they don’t is irrelevant. Something existing determines if we take it into account as Marxist. That’s a major part of being a leftist
Like, if we had technology for genetic manipulation, and someone who dosen’t exists so it’s can’t concent to be birth without eyes, arms and legs, so it would be OK to do it?
In the actual world, dominated by the bourgeoisie, there is some consent between people and scientiest, that this would be not ok. It is not been seen as ethical. What is ethical or not is nothing more than a artificial line made by humans and depends greatly on material conditions. Especially after human experiments in Japan and Germany.
But the question, if it is ok to artificially create a human with so many disabilities or simply give birth to human, are things which are not related at all. Only if you really equal the human existence itself as a form of suffering, then it has nothing to do with marxism at all and is some Buddha or similar idealistic stuff. But even they are not against giving birth to children.
Maybe the problem is more about branding, if I would say exactly the same without saying the word “antinatalist” nobody would bat an eye.
This are different things. Anti-natalism has nothing to do with being against artificially creating people with the aim of making them suffer as much as possible.
That’s not materialist. Consent can’t exist for those that don’t exist so in a material lens we can only analyze those that do in fact exist. The conception of the theoretical and non-existent individual’s consent can’t be materialist and couldn’t be upheld by an actual leftist.
