question for this site: do you even plan to have kids?
>b-but life nowadays is too expensive and dangerous
idc i'm not asking that uyghur
>b-but i have the freedom to choose if i plan to have kids or not
how do you plan to build the future then?
also not asking that neither
>>2286403Nah
I have too many mental problems to overcome before I can get a gf, kids is so far away its just not possible for me
>>2286403 (OP)
I will father children with many beautiful desi bhabhi 😏
Thrusting 11 cm powerful rod🍆deeply inside the vagena💦
It is the act what matters sometimes 😅But being a father I do not know 😬
>>2286696Marxism actually has a pretty big focus on personal freedom, kind of like libertarianism, which might seem surprising given how things played out in the 20th century. Marx thought that the ideal society is where “the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all". It sounds a bit weird or even like a brain teaser to say that true individualism only happens in a socialist or communist setup, but it’s not that crazy. Oscar Wilde put it nicely in The Soul of Man Under Socialism: when socialism kicks in, people will finally be free to be themselves, stop living just for others, and really grow into who they want to be.
Marx was first and foremost a liberal. Anyone who has actually truly read his works (rare breed) understands this.
>>2286403>question for this site: do you even plan to have kids?No.
I probably wouldn't expect anyone here to want kids and if they do then their normalfag asses should probably be on Facebook or something.
There's no good reason to have kids these days.
>The Working Class and NeoMalthusianismhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/jun/29.htm
>From the point of view of the working class, however, it would hardly be possible to find a more apposite expression of the completely reactionary nature and the ugliness of “social neomalthusianism” than Mr. Astrakhan’s phrase cited above.
>… “Bear children so that they can be maimed” … For that alone? Why not that they should fight better, more unitedly, consciously and resolutely than we are fighting against the present-day conditions of life that are maiming and ruining our generation?
>This is the radical difference that distinguishes the psychology of the peasant, handicraftsman, intellectual, the petty bourgeois in general, from that of the proletarian. The petty bourgeois sees and feels that he is heading for ruin, that life is becoming more difficult, that the struggle for existence is ever more ruthless, and that his position and that of his family are becoming more and more hopeless. It is an indisputable fact, and the petty bourgeois protests against it.
>But how does he protest?
>He protests as the representative of a class that is hopelessly perishing, that despairs of its future, that is depressed and cowardly. There is nothing to be done … if only there were fewer children to suffer our torments and hard toil, our poverty and our humiliation—such is the cry of the petty bourgeois.
>The class-conscious worker is far from holding this point of view. He will not allow his consciousness to be dulled by such cries no matter how sincere and heartfelt they may be. Yes, we workers and the mass of small proprietors lead a life that is filled with unbearable oppression and suffering. Things are harder for our generation than they were for our fathers. But in one respect we are luckier than our fathers. We have begun to learn and are rapidly learning to fight—and to fight not as individuals, as the best of our fathers fought, not for the slogans of bourgeois speechifiers that are alien to us in spirit, but for our slogans, the slogans of our class. We are fighting better than our fathers did. Our children will fight better than we do, and they will be victorious.
<The working class is not perishing, it is growing, becoming stronger, gaining courage, consolidating itself, educating itself and becoming steeled in battle. We are pessimists as far as serfdom, capitalism and petty, production are concerned, but we are ardent optimists in what concerns the working-class movement and its aims. We are already laying the foundation of a new edifice and our children will complete its construction.
>That is the reason—the only reason—why we are unconditionally the enemies of neomalthusianism, suited only to unfeeling and egotistic petty-bourgeois couples, who whisper in scared voices: “God grant we manage somehow by our selves. So much the better if we have no children.”
>It goes without saying that this does not by any means prevent us from demanding the unconditional annulment of all laws against abortions or against the distribution of medical literature on contraceptive measures, etc. Such laws are nothing but the hypocrisy of the ruling classes. These laws do not heal the ulcers of capitalism, they merely turn them into malignant ulcers that are especially painful for the oppressed masses. Freedom for medical propaganda and the protection of the elementary democratic rights of citizens, men and women, are one thing. The social theory of neomalthusianism is quite another.
<Class-conscious workers will always conduct the most ruthless struggle against attempts to impose that reactionary and cowardly theory on the most progressive and strongest class in modern society, the class that is the best prepared for great changes. >>2286403>question for this site: do you even plan to have kids?No
>b-but life nowadays is too expensive and dangerousI have enough, and the state pays like 90 % of the cost with all the child grants and free healthcare, day care and schooling
Reason is why should I, those fuckers take an extreme amount of time and effort, not so much money but that is not the issue. I don't think even a partner is worth the time and effort it takes from me-time.
Maybe one day, but I also casually see multiple woman in my life currently, and I don't think I'm currently at a good point in my life to be having a kid, in the sense of giving them the life and time I would want to give them. People really underestimate how much work goes into raising a kid, the kind of sacrifices in today's society you have to make. I already helped to raise most of my family, and currently we all chip in to help raise one of my siblings kids. Until they're grown up more, I'd only be splitting things, and while there was a time where I was in a committed relationship and considered children (and had a short scare about one), I don't think I'm in a mature enough a state and resolved enough of my baggage to be in the kind of relationship that I would be raising children in. And while my current partners are nice people, and their married lives sound cool, I don't think I'd want to have a kid with them or that they'd want more kids, and I wouldn't want to mess up their lives by having a kid with them and complicating things (and also really wouldn't be fair to any future kid). I don't know, I'm rambling, but I think if you're considering kids, you should really sit down and just think about the reason why. Are you actually considering the child and your partner, or are you just doing it for self-gratification/external idolization and the possibility of vicariously living through them? Do you care for the kid, or do you care for the idea of you caring for the kid?
>>2286702>Odds are he's petit-bourgeois. You can't get that big through just manual labor or working out while working full time and affording the gear he probably is on.Nah, half the younger scaffolders and bricky's i know are on the gear and obsessively into GYM.
I don't think it's a necessarily healthy or socially useful proletarian hobby but it's a proletarian hobby nonetheless.
Not for me to decide I need to ask women first
>>2286404TrucelGOD
>>2293014>just reading your description of being a parent doesn't make me want to impregnate anybodyWording of that statement aside, I do want to stress that parenthood genuinely isn't bad. I certainly don't regret it. I think that there are certain negatives that are overstated, particularly what it does to your hobbies and social life. I think it really varies based on what your interests are, cause babies aren't hard to take wherever you need to go. My partner and I go to a lot of poetry nights and open mics, I hike, and they paint. All of this is pretty easy to still do with a baby. The baby chills in a stroller during open mics, I strap them to by chest for hikes, and they paint on their own little canvas with my partner. Even travel isn't bad with the baby (though this is very dependent on the individual baby). We flew to California and back no problem, no crying or anything. Basically the only people whose social lives are "over" after having a kid are folks who habitually go to nightclubs or bars (not that there's anything wrong with that).
This isn't to say "having a kid is great all the time!" or that everyone should have one, I just want to be clear that it's not an inherently awful experience. Pretty much all the worst parts of parenting are imposed by the social and economic context we live in. Parents are given very little time to adjust at the hospital and immediately sent back to work, everything is expensive, and childcare is difficult to get into.
>A lot of incels consider themselves genetically inferior anyways why birth more from your inferior genes just go about your day not procreating the world will probably a better place that way and you'll probably feel less stressed.Regardless of whether "a lot of incels" includes you or not, I need you to evaluate the deeply fascist, eugenicist nature of this statement. No living thing, especially humans, can be simply reduced to their genes. To do so is pure bourgeois pseudoscience. Our genetic code plays an important role in our development, but this genetic code isn't a static thing. It actively changes and develops over the course of our lives in heritable ways, and we have long known that non-genetic and epigenetic factors play just as important a role in development as the genes themselves. Don't fall for fascist pseudoscience and bourgeois thinking of people as static, unchanging things. Every person is their own set of contradictions in a constant state of change, dialectically developing as one divides into two in countless ways.
>>2295207>>2295208It's funny because I was raised on a million 90s movies like Hook about how the dad was too busy with business to make their kids recital LMAO.
Yeah, try the childcare workers dropping subtle hints they're going to send you off with the cops in code you can't understand.
>>2286403When socialism comes you will not "have kids", young people will not be the private property of individual sperm donors. Children will be raised communally as equal proletarians and the tyranny of narcissist sperm donors will be a thing of the past. They are not "your" kids. They are their own individuals and engaging in the reproductive process doesn't make the end result "yours"
>>2295362>>you're a normalfag for expressing the universal psychological desire for your bloodline to be passed onSpooky reactionary nonsense, we are all human. Your "bloodline" is a idea in your head with no material basis. It's a idea just as arbitrary and reactionary as nation and race.
Unique IPs: 58