This post is just a quick informal thing to kick off discussion, I won't claim to be as informed as I should be and some of my points may be wrong.
>declining birthrates lead to shrinking economic growth and tax revenue+larger proportion of dependents, all due to a shrinking labor force
>birthrate decline (not yet population decline) is happening in most countries outside of Africa, regardless of socioeconomic development, cost of living or culture (incl. religion or "feminism")
>the most likely primary common cause is the simple availability of choice: not needing children as extra labor, more access to birth control/abortion, etc.
>>secondarily, often it is not the case that people don't want children but that they want to have them later in life and want to give their children optimal lives, e.g. being unwilling to raise children until one has a high-paying stable job; this also leads to people having less children overall
>>the chain reaction here is that the higher the standard of living gets, the bigger the opportunity cost of having children when one actually gets to DECIDE whether to have them, as well as a more demanding standard for WHEN one should have them
>the proposed liberal capitalist solutions fail to tackle the problem:
>>paying people to have children needs to cover the opportunity cost of not having them, which is already massive and will continue to increase the more an economy grows, which will eventually become unsustainable for governments
>>roundabout solutions like providing parents with tax cuts, exceptional welfare or a lower retirement age suffer from the same problem
>>even increased immigration will only stop the bleeding temporarily as the global population fails to keep up
>>automation might "cover" the decrease in labor force but at the same societal cost that massive automation will always bring
With all of the above in mind, it seems that capitalism combined with reproductive choice contains the seed of its own decline. Stagnation threatens the system, but growth leads in its own roundabout way back to stagnation.
The capitalists thus only have the option of restricting or steering choice, from banning abortion and contraceptives to the more extreme scenario of forcing women to be broodmares; or alternatively, by an ideology of pro-natalism for the "greater good", requiring many people to act against "rational self-interest".
In practice, however, those options are just forms of reaction, and even when reaction is successful (and it rarely is) all it can ultimately lead to is a repeat of the past, susceptible to the same conditions and contradictions that caused it to crumble once before.
This is a classic problem that manifests in many ways: capitalism needs laborers to be spenders, but progress inevitably requires a decrease in their ability to do so; in this case, by directly cutting the supply of labor.
Unironically, the only solution is socialism.
The only way to change this equation around without making things worse for everyone is by challenging the assumptions of growth and opportunity cost. This can happen in many ways.
If making a living isn't tied to the success of companies which need constant growth to stay competitive, the dependence on constantly increasing birthrates is reduced.
On the other hand, if society can directly contribute to making child rearing easier and less expensive instead of subsidizing the artificial difficulties and costs created by the market, the opportunity cost of having children is also reduced.
And this ties into many other factors. More safety, more education, more stability, they all ease the burden on parents.
But as you can see, it requires real socialism. Can't half-ass it and call it socialism anyway or you'll pay the price. You need real socialist outcomes.
So. Can porky survive this?
Cuba and North Korea, the most capitalist nations on earth
>>2454031Leaving aside whether either of these countries is really socialist, if you had actually read the post you'd note I didn't say birthrate decline is a consequence of capitalism. I said it's a consequence of reproductive choice. My point is that birthrate decline leads to stagnation (or shrinkage) which in the long run might be deadly for capitalist economies.
>>2454039>reproductive choiceWhich I mean literally, not in the limited sense of access to abortion and contraception. I'm counting any situation in which the pressure towards reproduction is reduced as "reproductive choice".
>>2454031Also even in the 70s there was no difference in fertility rates between Eastern and Western Europe, so I don't think this can be chalked up to capitalism or associated economic or social problems. Honestly I think that we should maybe just reassess people's relationship with reproduction and natalism in general. From a crude biological standpoint there is obviously a reproductive urge, except that this primarily takes the form of sexual gratification, and for almost our entire history we've been trying to come up with ways to be able to have sex without having children. It's pretty telling then that as soon as we developed days to do this reliably and with minimal loss of sexual satisfaction, it caused a crash in fertility rates. I think maybe we should just accept the possibility that the vast majority of people either don't want children or don't want very many, and were only having them before because they literally didn't have a choice.
who the FUCK cares about birthrates except for citizens of bourgeois society
>Unironically, the only solution is socialism.wowww fucking genius
>>2454031>most capitalistthere arent "degrees of capitalism" today btw
>>2456827
No, we are installing the matriarchy. One woman, multiple baby daddies.
>>2456827
Speak for yourself, I'm getting a harem.
>>2456839To put it more directly, marriage has always or at least for centuries in the west, been an institution to primarily benefit women.
>>2456839>>2456840Can never put it directly enough for you retards. Who is the shotgun turned upon? There you might find the gender losing in the transaction.
>>2454031They haven't advanced to the next mode of production yet, so yes they are still apart of a capitalist world system that shapes them no matter what their governments want. Its called historical materialism incase you didn't know, Fuckwit.
>>2453978The reason why birthrates are capitalisms most lethal contradiction is because the current pension scheme is predicated on the belief that labor will re-supply itself, that for every one retiree there would be three laborers creating value to support them. But since labor doesn't replenish the pension scheme gets worse and worse until retiring at all isn't economically feasible for the state. Of course immigration is the tool used to slow down this process, but a good chunk of this imported labor has no intention of retiring here, to the delight of the bourgeoise
>>2456867>The reason why birthrates are capitalisms most lethal contradiction is because the current pension scheme is predicated on the belief that labor will re-supply itself, that for every one retiree there would be three laborers creating value to support them. But since labor doesn't replenish the pension scheme gets worse and worse until retiring at all isn't economically feasible for the state. Of course immigration is the tool used to slow down this process, but a good chunk of this imported labor has no intention of retiring here, to the delight of the bourgeoiseIt could easily, but that's kind of another question. I don't believe in infinite growth and infinite productivity and utilization of resources. There is no point. We only need certain conditions and resources to maintain ourselves. We don't need to live in a future where everyone owns there own yacht with a crew of two dozen people, it's not possible and it doesn't make sense obviously. We just need shelter from the elements and nutrition and shit and then maybe like a community to have normal social life. This is achievable with stone age technology. We just keep raising the bar to ridiculous levels, the most ridiculous of which is none of these faggots can even prolong their life expectancy past whatever random poor fucker lived to a century +. You're all gonna die no matter what stupid faggot extravagant shit you had an army of people perform for your benefit in your life.
So yeah, even with a huge number of people never having children at all, homosexuals and etc. the breeders should easily be able to compensate provided we aren't all being squeezed to give the booj greater and greater extravagance that doesn't even provide any added enjoyment to them.
I think that the human population needs to reach an equilibrium, and the negative birth rates just indicate that the current system is above its carrying capacity, even if hypothetically we could support much more(but there is still an endpoint regardless of what crazy tech we can come up with.)
>So. Can porky survive this?>>2454031>Cuba and North Korea, the most capitalist nations on earthAssuming the under replacement rate countrys of the northern hemisphere will each need to take in 1% of their countrys population as replacement migration per year to avoid collapse, and that this will also eventually need to apply to india and china as well, then the northern hemisphere will eventually need to import around 40 million people per year
china will require 14 million people per year
india will require around the same so thats another 14 million
Europe needs 7.4 million
North america needs 3.8 million (mexicos TFR is also under replacement rate)
almost all of south america is also under replacement rate so they'll eventually need 4.3 million per year as well
so in total thats 43.5 million per year
Where will these migrants come from? probably not the middle east because they're all predicted to go under replacement TFR in the next 10 years as well, so they'll probably need migrants which will probably be around 5-10 million per year, so we're now at 47.5 - 53.5 million migrants needed per year to keep the northern hemisphere + south america afloat + the middle east
The obvious solution is to just drain Africa of people. China + Europe + India + the Americas can hypothetically import 50 million Africans per year, for the next 30-50 years before the continent is completely depopulated of people.
Scramble for Africa 2.0 is coming but it will be to take the continents people, not its resources.
Artificial wombs will solve this issue
>>2456839>>2456840>>2456841>You think "shotgun marriages" exist for the benefit of the father?It's for the benefit of the patriarch of the other family you retard. In patriarchal property relations, having a daughter who is pregnant, but without a guarantee of marriage, is disasterous. It means the cost of raising the child is entirely placed on the family clan, with the daughters value now viewed as diminished, leaving it difficult to aquire a new suitor. The lack of partner also means that the potential of being able to add said partners resources to the patriarchs own is now squandered.Traditional "Shotgun weddings", back even in the western feudal era, are effectively a way to cut losses. Yes, this man had a child with your daughter, denying her marrying someone possibility better off, but at the very best you can ensure there's somebody and you're not stuck with a unmarried daughter and a child.
>marriage has always or at least for centuries in the west, been an institution to primarily benefit women.Read Engels.
>>2454056>Also even in the 70s there was no difference in fertility rates between Eastern and Western Europe, Western Europe was below replacement level by the 70s while Eastern Europe had replacement level reproduction rates in the 70s
>>2457354>Scramble for Africa 2.0 is coming but it will be to take the continents people, not its resources.So a renewed Transatlantic Slave trade. History truly does rhyme
>>2457556>Read Engels.He's wrong.
>having a daughter who is pregnant, but without a guarantee of marriage, is disasterous. IIt's even more disastrous for the daughter.
>>2457624>"Reproduction is an inherent biological imperative" mfers when they get an internet connection: Time to end my bloodline.As a personal choice it makes sense. We only fuck because that's what our instincts tell us to do like all animals. Our instincts tell us to do a lot of shit we can rationally decide not to because we are sentient beings.
>>2457556>>2457680I mean it's kinda basic logic that the man can flee the consequence of his actions as soon as they happen. Whereas, traditionally, a woman can't for at least 9 months, in which she probably won't be able to survive without help(from her patriarch and family.) Whereas that's not a problem for a man.
>>2457713
It's probably birth control.
>>2457638Not according to OP's map.
No one here has acknowledged that in ye opdem days it made sense to have more kids because after three or four years that’s more labor on the farm, nowadays kids are a pure drain on finances for 30 years minimum as they’re literally not allowed to contribute economically. Bring back child labor or at the very least give them wages for schoolwork.
>>2457816Why do they all look so lame? Why bother procreating if this is the best you could spawn? Most people are even worse than this and Elon ain't that great just very rich. Society should sterilize people based on looks and height or something. I know I'd get got but I don't care maybe it would've helped accept myself sooner and helped in attaining sex and being able to socialize or whatever. It's not like I ever wanted or expected to ever have kids anyways
>Unironically, the only solution is socialism.
>If making a living isn't tied to the success of companies which need constant growth to stay competitive, the dependence on constantly increasing birthrates is reduced.
>On the other hand, if society can directly contribute to making child rearing easier and less expensive instead of subsidizing the artificial difficulties and costs created by the market, the opportunity cost of having children is also reduced.
>And this ties into many other factors. More safety, more education, more stability, they all ease the burden on parents.
This will quite literally never happen, Contemporary Left is too high on the antinatalism, environmentalism and childhate/misanthropy supply or they believe that people only have kids because they're brainwashed into being cis straight breeders when 90% of population is actually gay/childfree/antinatalist.
Instead you'll get One Child policies like those in PRC, Vietnam and Iran (yes Iran also had a population control policy at some point), only they won't be enforced as brutally as the ones mentioned above and with gayer terminology ("death to le cishet normiefag/chudcel breeding cults", "death to mombies", "kill all cishetmoids", "kill all crotch parasites under 16" et cetera).
>>2457860I don't know many people on the left who actually hate kids
>>2453978No contradictions. Both socialist USSR and capitalist USA experienced a drop in fertility rates. Humanity as a whole doesn't want to breed - when they are conscious and in control of their actions. You have to deal with it, not try to drag humanity back into unconsciousness, that's reactionary
>>2454056>>2456883>>2457844>>2457947Antinatalism is bourgeois and gay FYI.
>>2457895It's mostly genuinely getting their mind blown most people are still straight and want to have a family, but there are chunks of left that are practically r/childfree.
>>2458066 The more cvoice and opportunity people get to not breed, they still choose not to on average, even controlling for economic situations. Those on the left seem to new far more concerned with people as complex beings, while reactionaries tend to be the one concerned with people as a numbers game
>>2458066I seem to be advocating more for a type of eugenics anyways. I know I couldn't stop people from breeding even if I wanted to. But like
>>2457947 has pointed out people generally don't want to breed that much anyways although I do kind of agree with>>2457860 that socialism would make having children easier and better. I don't particularly hate children or anything and I think a large chunk of childfree people are unfair towards them I also don't particularly feel good raising a child. Generally I just view life as unpleasant and that ultimately makes me view procreation as futile and not worth the effort.
>>2458258>2018imagine what it's like now
>Why be in an annoying relationship and force yourself to partner with someoneyeah hahaha imagine not being an alienated shell of a human being hahahaha
Some other issues issues that come to mind are the labor children do in raising their own younger siblings that has now been forced onto the parents and the decline of multi generational housing. The concept of "starting your own family" itself seems pretty bourgeois, as if you come in to unclaimed property and just "start" a social project.
>>2458389What people "ideally want" is both prone to social norms, mere exposure effect and media, as well as not reflective of choices they really make even when opportunity is there.
>>2458066>It's mostly genuinely getting their mind blown most people are still straight and want to have a familyKinda hard to square that with the fact that birth rates pretty much always drop to below replacement levels as soon as reliable contraception becomes available.
>>2458549is the joke that men would love to actually be complimented
>>2458549Socialism won't help either.
Also it took me several rereads of that picture to realize it was gender flipped of "things men say that demean women".
>>2458556the joke is liberal feminism
>>2458549why is this political compass color
>>2458549Was that comic made by a red piller or another leftoid lamenting that men and women are not, in fact, the same.
>>2453978I made a similar thread here but it was largely ignored because people don't like reading:
>>2439868 Marx basically admits this very early in Capital Volume 1 OP:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrLlc_hAViY8:00-10:29 are relevant:
<The owner of labour-power is mortal. If then his appearance in the market is to be continuous, and the continuous conversion of money into capital assumes this, the seller of labour-power must perpetuate himself, “in the way that every living individual perpetuates himself, by procreation.”8 The labour-power withdrawn from the market by wear and tear and death, must be continually replaced by, at the very least, an equal amount of fresh labour-power. Hence the sum of the means of subsistence necessary for the production of labour-power must include the means necessary for the labourer’s substitutes, i.e., his children, in order that this race of peculiar commodity-owners may perpetuate its appearance in the market.If making above subsistence wage makes you "a petty bourgeois treatlerite" because it allows you to "accumulate savings after monthly expenses" which are "reserves that can be potentially converted into capital" then by that same logic any couple who has fewer than 2 children or any single person who has fewer than 1 child is "petty bourgeois" because the subsistence wage is the wage required, according to Marx, not just to keep yourself alive, but also your children, since capitalism requires the labor force to reproduce itself.
If a nation's population fails to reproduce itself Capital has to seek out labor from other nations by outsourcing or using immigrant labor. Something we see in the imperial core. If you're single and aren't bearing the expense of raising at least 1 adopted child, or if you're a couple, and you aren't bearing the expense of raising at least 2 children, then you aren't reproducing the labor force for capital, which means that even with a subsistence wage (which by definition, according to Marx himself, includes the cost of raising children to adulthood), you will have left over savings that can go towards "treats" (luxury commodities that aren't essential for survival like vidya games) or be used as money capital (i.e. invested as self-expanding value in an interest yielding savings account or 401k or some other petty bourgeois asset).
By this logic, many of the most puritanical Marxists on here (like Iron Felix) who rail against "treatlerites" and such are usually single men without children (the usual imageboard demographic) who, even if we believe them, and they are "immiserated wage workers earning a subsistence wage and unable to accumulate savings" they aren't actually reproducing themselves, which is one of the things Marx originally stated about the working class. This is because Marx himself had 7 children, half of whom died before adulthood, and he was writing during a time when contraception and birth control and sex education were basically nonexistent. This is why Marx railed against the Malthusian doctrine and basically stated that it was impossible for the working class to practice abstinence collectively. I think one of the most important things that has changed since Marx's time is the availability of sex education, contraception, birth control, and a more skeptical attitude towards marriage and starting a family, as well as the rise of anti-reproductive ideologies like antinatalism. It is harder for capital in the imperial core countries to get the desired oversupply of labor power, which is why the resort to outsourcing and immigration. Only a handful of "developing" countries still have fertility rates higher than 4 children per woman, and most of the imperial core countries have trouble getting each woman to have 2 children. So the labor force is not reproducing itself.
Birth strike under capitalism does increase wages actually by lowering the supply of labor and thereby increasing its demand. The inverse is also the case, which is what Marx was trying to point out with the idea of the reserve army of labor, or as Eugene Debs once called it, the reserve army of scabs. The same is true in pre-capitalism. In feudalism for example the only people who were wage workers were artisans in the towns, in the guilds. But when the black plague happened in the 1300s a lot of them died and their wages effectively doubled. This enraged King Edward III in England, at the time, so much, that he tried to freeze wages, but it as basically unenforceable. That was the result of a pandemic instead of a birth strike but we see similar patterns whenever the working population does not reproduce itself: The bourgeoisie has to pay more wages.
So maybe instead of being puritanical about who's "really proletarian" based on the ability to accumulate savings or not (without even considering whether it's set aside for emergency or used as money capital or both), we should look at how vastly different the imperial core is as an environment itself than during Marx's time. The proletariat is able to do things like accumulate savings even when making a subsistence wage by staying single and refusing to reproduce. Now if you want to redefine "subsistence" away from Marx's definition to not include reproduction, fine, but keep in mind that workers failing to reproduce themselves is not sustainable for Capital as a multi-generational system based on self expanding value and high profit rates, which is why Marx was focused on it as a system that needs to survive for more than 1 generation of working class life, which is why he included the cost of reproduction in subsistence.
>>2458422But what opportunity is there to have that "ideal" family? 2005 is a completely different reality to 2025
>>2458536>below replacement levels as soon as reliable contraception becomes available.It can't be universal that contraception introductions collapses the birthrate or for much of the 1970s to 1990s most of the WP countries would have had severe decline of population around the same time as the West at the time despite having access to contraceptions. Also it doesn't change the fact what that anon said:
>It's mostly genuinely getting their mind blown most people are still straight and want to have a family >>2459114>>2459114>RevolutionBy who? A bunch of childless 40 year olds?
>>2459025>If making above subsistence wage makes you "a petty bourgeois treatlerite" petit bourgeois blah blahretard who thinks theres a defined numerical cutoff in what determines a proletarian and middle classer
you scholastic morons get hung up way too much on isolated sentences to think about what makes the proletariat and what makes the middle class
the fact is: you do not get away from the messiness that offends your theoretical conscience in the conceptions usually put forward here with these kinds of formal considerations. the fuzziness of the middle class is a specific characteristic of it
im sure everyone can see the difference between a person with scanty earnings that can suddenly afford a bit more due to fighting with class brothers, and a wealthy person that moves into one of the richest and most expensive places on earth for example
>>2459199
nobody said, "nobody has kids anymore" besides you.
>>2459181First I don't really have any friends. Yeah big surprise I know. Second if I go by my coworkers most of them have kids or are having kids. Almost every year I've worked here somebody was having kids. Right now there's about two people expecting that I see. But the bulk seem to stop at two although several have 4 or maybe more I've really seen 4 as max. I'm actually an odd one out , what surprise right, since I have no kids and I'm actually middle age at this point. Most of the other Non parents are in their 20s or even teens . Point is I came about with my line of thinking despite what I see although I will concede it might be due to me just being not particularly normal or maybe maladjusted . I'm this guy
>>2458100 by the way
>>2459197That is not related to the point about desiring kids
>>2459211I hear and see all kinds of women talking about how they don't want kids and shit. I think they probably get over that by the time they hit their 30s and they see the window closing, but by then it is often too late.
>>2459210Also I should add that I have several male relatives that are my age range roughly late 20s to early 40s who have never had children. I think it's a bit more common among female relative in that age category though . Although me and my two siblings , brother and sister, have no children and we're 30+.
>>2459220*more common for female relatives in that age range to have children
>>2459258Lol what is this asshurt
Are you personally offended by someone bringing up points on this subject
If we stop having kids, who's gonna pay rent?
Having kids so they can wage slave and die on a hit rock is wack. Don't make more slaves for the owner class.
>China’s fertility rate, i.e. the average number of children an woman gives birth to in her lifetime fell to 1.01 last year. In the UN’s comparison, China’s low rate is approaching that of Singapore (0.95), Taiwan (0.86), South Korea (0.73) and Hong Kong (0.73). Many countries with rapidly aging populations still have higher fertility rates than China, including Japan (1.22), Finland (1.29) and Italy (1.21). The global fertility rate fell to 2.25 in 2024 and is expected to reach 2.07 by 2054, i.e. a level below the stable replacement rate (2.1).
China is in the interesting place of being in one of the lowest reproduction rates in the world while the GDP PPP per capita has gone up dramatically over the last ten years, while also enacting a diverse array of pro-natal policies to subsidize child rearing.
Economic development is making it worse, not better.
>>2459551Holy shit you will die young, wont you?
>>2457354>Scramble for Africa 2.0 is coming but it will be to take the continents people, not its resourcesIm sure people around the world will be thrilled to become more like africa
>>2459566Machines are smarter than people. Capitalism and technology made it so that individual betterness doesnt matter.
>>2459574Machines must be maintained and rebuild
Too bad, it does matter
>>2459595They will be build and maintained by using other machines.
>>2459597It will be like warhammer
>>2459598Warhammer is 500 year old cyborg and legions of slaves with a life expectancy of 19
>>2467030South Korea sure fell a long way in 60 years
>the chain reaction here is that the higher the standard of living gets, the bigger the opportunity cost of having children when one actually gets to DECIDE whether to have them, as well as a more demanding standard for WHEN one should have them
This isn't true. Living standards are collapsing across the entire West. People don't have kids because they can't get make enough money to raise them. This is solely the fault of the capitalists who expect everyone to pop out 10 kids while making minimum wage because they are so fucking greedy they refuse to give any opportunities or social advancement for the vast majority.
>be porky
>defund natal care etc
>wtf why are birth rates plummeting?
falling RoP moment
>>2467171How does that explain Chinese data? And people used to have kids while there were multiple generations of a family living together in long-held farmhouses.
>>2467189
while porky depends on labor this is a good thing, starve them of labor!
>>2467094That's north Korea
>>2467189
>look at sweden, they have tons of incentives for starting a family
no. that's all in the past. it's also in the process of being further dismantled. the only way Sweden can keep up the number of proles is by importing cheap foreign labor power. with SD in power this is more difficult
our dear leaders have also decided to spend ¼ of the state budget on war, while lowering taxes. this presents a problem since SD wants pro-natalist policies (but only for whites). such policies can't be funded without taxing someone
Rakesh and Pajeet, Jamal and Mahmud will mating press native european wahmen on top of their own wahmen and impregnate all of them with triplets. This will solve le labour shortage.
>>2467158
WHAAAAAAAAATT? IMPOSSSSIBLEE!
>>246721
Noooooo, we must force le porky to build productive forces and them organize le proletariat noooooooo
Thus we need lab-borne babies to raise in state-managed orphanages. Thus the nation will prosper! Vote Communist!
>>2467217Chinese and Asian people more broadly don't have kids because their education system is so intense that even adults will wake up in a cold sweat and have nightmares about exams. Too much stress from homework.
>>2467321No. Fuck you trccn. KYS
>>2467323>education system that gives knowledge instead of feel-good marks is le nightmareLol. Lmao
>>2467222Look at the green line. South Korea went from 6 births per women to .72 between 1960 and 2023. That's what I was most impressed with.
>>2467334Based korean women. Total koreanoid moid death
>>2467330It’s mostly rote memorization and standardized test bullshit that doesn’t translate into the real world. There’s a reason China ended standardized tests for kids under 12, suicides were through the roof
>>2467344>It’s mostly rote memorization and standardized test bullshit that doesn’t translate into the real worldThe very fact that Chinese are, in fact, better specialists than Westoids, speaks otherwise, lmao
>>2467344And nah, China hasn't ended standardized tests. China has outlawed out-of-school schooling, because this shit destroys education and eats kids' time instead of giving them anything useful society-wise (teachers would rather teach for extra tips than at schools)
>>2467324Why do you hate the high productivity of a growing population under socialist economy
>>2467313
based ultraorthodox Jews
>Generally speaking the more religious and less developed a country is the more kids they have
until recently I've taken this kind of argument at face value. but now I'm starting to suspect that the liberal spiel about "higher QoL -> fewer children" is just a way to try and justify Porky dismantling the welfare state. when workers fail to reproduce themselves we should expect this to be because they're paid below their value
>>2459025>any couple who has fewer than 2 children or any single person who has fewer than 1 child is "petty bourgeois" DINK: double income no kids
>If a nation's population fails to reproduce itself Capital has to seek out labor from other nations by outsourcing or using immigrant labor."NAFTA is a response to low reproduction levels" (insert Clinton joke)
>>2459551>Don't make more slaves for the owner classhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beloved_(novel)>>2467344>China ended standardized tests for kids under 12, suicides were through the roof"Capitalist alienation making young people believe they have no future outside of LinkedIn wage slavery is good! the real problem is scary pieces of paper that are explicit about their future as chaff for bourgeois accumulation"
>>2467334Ah heck my screen was so dark I literally didn't see them.
South Korean data jumpscare
If the issue is "people are too exploited for children" why are people in imperialized, immiserated countries still in population growth birth rates?
I think there's some deeper issue with how industrial society interacts with how people rationalize having kids at all
Why can't it be as simple as Electricity, Television, computers and mobile phones give you another option beside fucking before bed time?
We need to figure out a way to decouple the production of more humans from humans needing to be pregnant. Being pregnant objectively sucks, I'm sure most of the other men here would never want to be pregnant if they were women even if there were no economic downsides. If they're ever able to get genetically-modified animal organs in humans to work I wonder if you could use those animals to gestate human embryos since they wouldn't reject/be rejected by the human immune system.
>>2467556because there you can pop out kids and send them to the mines/farm like in the "good old days"
>>2467556>If the issue is "people are too exploited for children" why are people in imperialized, immiserated countries still in population growth birth rates?because southern labor power is less valuable. they're actually less exploited, at least in absolute terms. also some areas have high infant mortality so proles must pop out more babies than average
>>2453978I had a dream were the rationally planned state had to compete with capitalism without extracting surplus labour by artificial coercion through paying half the labour voucher then delaying payment for the other half but this would also mean they would work less because they're getting paid in full so which would require double the population size than a capitalist state to simulate the same about of productivity.
>>2453978Is there any suggestion that communism would increase the birthrate naturally? What's to say it would remain at replacement levels or just below?
Maybe life just isn't really worth it after all and our problems will be solved or at least lessened by having less people at least over time. Since all people really wanted to do was have sex it's a lot easier to do that now without the risk of procreation at least for those who are actually getting it. For those that don't then there are the alternatives and an even lower risk of pregnancy happening and since it's being reported that less people are having sex on a regular basis then it makes more sense that birth rates are lowering. Less sex, more protective sex equals less births.
>>2481922Peasants were a distinct class and wages are not going up with inflation, if we’re going to keep the family unit it makes sense that everyone can financially contribute, we do this with old people between social security and pensions
>>2482167Birth control became easier, but it always existed and it still isn't necessarily effective.
People always had the choice of ejaculating outside or being gay. These two things are showcased and explicitly condemned in the Bible. Also there were herbs that performed the same role as hormonal birth control and morning-after pills.
Contemporary birth control methods don't always work either. Some people are too horny and don't use a condom because "it feels better" or because they are too lazy to buy it in a particular situation. There are women who would never choose to take birth control because of its effects on the body and the mind. It's hard to understand why is it feminist for women to suffer just because some men can't be bothered to put on a condom. Some might not realize that the woman is pregnant until it's too late, especially if there is a contraceptive method involved that failed. People might be reluctant to undergo abortion. Menstruation itself is a punishment ordained by
God evolution for not getting pregnant and should be considered a deterrent against non-reproductive sex, no matter how is it achieved.
>>2483573Socialism will solve the problem by simply existing as whatever we need to define it as and not through actually having solutions, what a genius answer.
>>2483573>it'll outcompete every other society below replacementSpot on, the current population boom and bust already happened at the end of the stone age, when the transition to agricultural life caused a spike in birthrates.
Some societies were able to cope with that by changing to a newer mode of production, others collapsed because of reaction.
>>2483582We already know what the solutions are, populations of people who neither fight nor perform labor are the only ones with positive birthrates as we see in israel. Wage labor society is simply incapable of sustaining itself long-term. I guess racial socialism (fascism) is also capable of the transition
If America turned socialist tomorrow, and the flow of imported labor stopped we would find it necessary to professionalize motherhood and have a community of women with the political power and leverage of creating and nurturing future labor passed back to them just as it was in the Matriarchal tribal societies of old
>>2483592Why was this not the case historically then? We've had laboring groups that reproduced for several millenia
>>2483599Things changed since capitalism and the industrial revolution.
>>2483599Engels in The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State says it was the transition from Matrilineal to Patriarchal society that caused this issue, and the rise of wages and more importantly private property
>>2483606So, what, all of class society has seen falling birthrates? Primitive communism was the average woman popping 200 children out a year and it's been falling for thousands of years?
>>2483611That still doesn't give us an explanation of why it happens under capitalism bit not under other systems.
This also quite clashes with any concept of western laborers benefiting from imperialism if it's a value exploitation thing.
>>2483614>That still doesn't give us an explanation of why it happens under capitalism bit not under other systems. it did happen under other systems but was solved through violence and coercion. As societies become more advanced its put at odds with the archaic structures it depends on. The problem only got worse when women were emancipated in the workforce and marriage became optional. I see wage labor as more responsible than capitalism itself as the USSR had the same fertility rate issues
>This also quite clashes with any concept of western laborers benefiting from imperialism if it's a value exploitation thing.it's not. Indias births just fell behind replacement rate and their industrialization went very poorly
>>2483617So human society has been functionally based on rape for thousands of years and the moment we try to stop rape-factory society it comes apart, the only way to solve it is something literally nobody has succeeds at yet.
>>2483857>the only way to solve it is something literally nobody has succeeds at yet.yes. like in other modes of production the bottleneck is always the price of labor, and our system systemically destroys its future stock. we're now in a period of global ideological competition. who will come out top? who's capable of this change? Who knows, but whoever manages it will have a headstart to global hegemony, and it will be either socialism or fascism
Declining birthrates are one of the greatest things that can happen on this planet and if you say otherwise, you're just showing you cannot reflect out of a capitalist framework.
>>2483606Yeah and he was wrong, no such transition happened. Marx and Engels had no idea about the prehistoric world, primitive communism is one of the most retarded things ever
having thought more about this:
If you introduce polygamy then each woman only needs to give birth to (n+1/n) * 1.05 children (where n is women per mating group), if you can get a way to ensure there are far more female than males born.
For example, if you have 400 women and 100 men, and you can maintain this gender balance ratio, the birth rate can drop to a mere 1.32 and you'd still have population growth.
This doesn't necessarily mean women all have to be attached to the guy in marriage, mind, if we accept IVF.
>>2494493>maintain this gender balance ratioSelective abortions are too much of a taboo in modern societies.
>>2483617>it did happen under other systems but was solved through violence and coercion. Examples of "solving it" under other systems?
Please don't cite Decree 770 in Ceaușescu's Romania (picrel) as it caused way more harm than good (loads of orphaned children and a huge increase in maternal death related to illegal abortions performed in grossly unsanitary conditions).
>>2483604That was more of a joke, for serious(tm) thought see
>>2481821 >>2494534>Examples of "solving it" under other systems? like in ancient rome they passed laws like how women in bondage to a master could be freed legally if she had three children, part of a wider set of laws meant to boost fertility primarily in the elite. Pretty much every urban city had more deaths than births and was only sustained through immigration from the poor rurals
Labor itself is not the driver of falling birthrates, look at the Amish population. It's the interaction with the labor market and wage labor that's responsible
>>2494534>Selective abortions are too much of a taboo in modern societies.Just modify the fertilization process so that you simply don't get male kids.
>>2494534>picPretty sure it's fake data, projected from researcher's asshole
>>2494661have some more please
>>2494621how would you enforce that exactly? strict IVF-only reproduction with 1 in 5 chance of getting a male fetus?
>>2494684It'd take some societal restructuring but genetic engineering and possibly retroviral options.
Obviously it's not gonna happen overnight, but the short of it is, the more the gender balance skews female, the lower the fertility rate can go, till it's basically a bit over 1.05
>>2459222You think this is a funny joke anon? Women die of sepsis trying clothes hanger abortions. And abortion is illegal in many places in the world, made illegal by men, bourgeois men
Is it really a problem for liberalism?
Most of the poorest workers are mostly not needed for labor in the numbers that they were before. Especially if the cold war is going to force industrialization to the poorest part of the periphery. Be it to dispute rivals or exploit the profits. As automation increases productivity in places where economic activity is meant to be delimited to imperialist interests, a lot of people are simply not needed. So it's okay if they die out.
If it's not fertility or climate change, or poverty or sickness, it will be conflict. Because the means will NOT be allowed.
>>2453978outside of the logic of capitalist exploiters, high fertility rates are not good. Birthrate decline is 100% a good thing.
>>2456839>>2456840I think the problem is that you guys assume women aren't totally okay with being single mothers if it means their child gets a genetic benefit from mixing DNA with men with good looks and bodies.
Institutional marriage did in fact get started to ensure women couldn't just all conglomerate into Chads harem, but it also evolved in a way where men who are Chads realized it was less beneficial than living under matriarchy, it's super weird, but under matriarchy the hot minority of men get it the best.
>>2495733>Institutional marriage did in fact get started to ensure women couldn't just all conglomerate into Chads harem,There are societies with polygamy and marriage so that's not the case. It's because who the fuck is going to provide for this family? Obviously not the philandering Chad. If the man can support multiple families, then it is allowed in those societies. If you can only take care of one you get one. If you can take care of 0 you get 0. So at the end of the day, like I said, marriage is an institution to primarily benefit women/children. It's not like anyone was ever stopping women from siring bastards, but people recognized that it wasn't good for the women/children, thus the taboo. Maybe I should say it's primarily for the kids since the women can dump the kids at the orphanage or whatever, but a woman can't really birth some kids secretly and secretly dump her progeny, whereas a man can fuck, and ride off into the sunset at most 9 months in advance.
>>2495733Why couldn't my parents have been good looking and more socially connected. I could've been banging like crazy.
>>2495733>Institutional marriage did in fact get started to ensure women couldn't just all conglomerate into Chads haremwhere do you incels retards even find those stupid theories. Do you just make shit up?
We need declining birthrates for fucks sake, we're at 8 billion and we'll get to 11 billion at peak population. Stop worrying about this made-up "problem". It's literally just capitalists whining that the labor supply is declining which puts workers at an advantage.
>>2456839> people say treating women as exchangeable property through a dowry and marriage system is patriarchal, but have you considered that raping, impregnating, and abandoning women is an even more patriarchal otucome?i guess
>>2495985I don't it's usually rape when things like that happen. It's usually consensual it's just that the dude only wanted to fuck and may have lied about wanting to stick around or maybe did stick around but decided it wasn't for him or maybe like
>>2495733 said and the woman just wanted a piece of the guys genetics and didn't care if he stuck around.
>>2495985It doesn't even matter because no one is getting married anymore. Patriarchy ended I guess.
>>2495537Comrade she is using a machine
>>2453978The only problem I see in this is Nigeria growing its population to 1 billion with infrastructure worse than India. This is why China needs to take leadership in 3rd world relations to help these countries not to become even more hellish than they are now.
>>2497442Communist China already does this. The Belt and Road Initiative creates long term conditions for Global Peace and Prosperity and Harmonious Shared Future for Mankind.
>>2497462>Global Peace and Prosperity and Harmonious Shared Future for Mankind.i love this clanker
>>2497500Have you considered martyrdom instead of shitposting?
>>2456840it colaterally benefits women while also damaging them in many ways, mainly by harming their ability to be autonomous agents both personally and in civil society. but the main functionality of marriage as an institution is being able to organize a sedentary agrarian society with division of labor and complex economies, mainly by hereditary transmission of the forces of production and, therefore, stabilization of the mode of production by a clear cut determination of social relations into low social mobility classes that iterate themselves through different generations. this is why capitalism is destined to do away with the family and those others ancien regime institutions, and the birthrate decline along with many other phenomena such as feminism and the general desintegration of gender, must be seen as part of this trend. This, i believe, will only tend to increase once this rotten finantial derive the world economy has taken due to anglo-american imperialism comes to an end, once an industrial superpower has done away with the rentiere class and keeps the logic going into the inevitability of socialism, such as the OP said
>>2498012It’s not enough just for the ancient forms of marriage to be done away with, they need to be replaced with new structures where people can be both stable and free to live their authentic desires or whatnot. Right now it’s just rugged individualism and that’s just not a good model.
>>2498013yes but what exactly would a post-capitalist societal structure look like that both retains everyone's standards of living and encourages population growth naturally?
>>2498013communism brings the best possible scenario for an optimal love life: the total expulsion of strategic behaviour from love-seeking through the absence of scarcity and, therefore, the absence of a need to employ reproduction and love-desire for economic means, on the on hand; on the other, many factors, such as the absence of education scarcity, the erosion of the state, the family, private property, money… will bring about a fundamental change in our ego-complex, or "mentality", "personality"… the absence of social strife will radically increase communitarian behaviour and the basic social concept we operate with. i believe that the change would be so fundamental that we can hardly imagine it. i think the model would be a type of large scale communal reproductive and caretaking system such as that of some tribes studied in anthropology.
love would, because of this, cease to be economical, and therefore acquire the same structure as friendship: since both its necessitative character would be done away with scarcity and the family institution ("necessitative" as in, necessarily following the family structure in order to properly iterate society), and its superficial consumptive character done away with commodity form, scarcity, culture industry… its true essence as free appretiation of each other's beauty in a sexually or erotically expressable way would emerge, and we would engage each other erotically just as we now do in the realm of friendship, completely freely. i even believe that the line between friendship and eroticism would be greatly blurred, and that it would be all considered part of the same coninuum, or rather, spectrum, because it would not be linear (i.e. the more intensity, the closer to eroticism), but rather multidimensional (so that there could be intense friendship with weak eroticism and viceversa). Another way of putting it: the conditions of possibilty for rape and unrequited love would be abolished, since love would not be a necessity, but something that duly emerges spontanously between individuals. I think that this friendship spectrum already is the underlying logic of personal relations of mutual recognition, only that scarcity and the institutions built around it "contaminate" the spectrum harming its "free" functioning. and i put "free" in scare quotes because i dont mean freedom as in liberal freedom, i.e. we are born free but made slaves by the insitutions… no. Precisely the long term operations of these "limiting" (therefore, determining, determinatio negatio est) institutions are what will achieve the freedom that we potentially can have but actually lack, once some emergent properties are "unlocked" and with some luck due to stochastic factors. that's why "contaminate" is also put in scare quotes.
>>2498068>the conditions of possibilty for rape and unrequited love would be abolished, since love would not be a necessity, Would conditions of possibility for murder and assault also be abolished? Rape is not an act of love by any means and is only tangentially related to it
>>2498017theorically, the change would be so intense and counter intuitive that even urbanism would change, since houses are linked to the family. some kind of communal housing would probably develop, based around not bloodline but the personal life developement (an artistically inclined person would try to move into an artistically inclined community housing etc.). It is likely that the sheer concept of housing, city, countryside… in general, the whole conception of living spaces, would change, since the dichotomies between city and countryside, living space and working space, etc. would totally change, so i doubt that words like "housing" and "urbanism" would make sense, unless as etymological sediments.
>>2498074in theory, yes, the conditions of possibility of murder would cease to be along with scarcity, or remain as a category for understanding stochastically disfunctional behaviour of people we today call "mentally ill", but it would be called murder only as an etymological sediment, since murder itself, as a concept or category intrinsecally and historically linked to the whole system of law, right, and therefore, with the maintenance of a social order by means of the monopoly over violence which the state necessarily has to employ; would cease to be along with class, scarcity, markets… The sheerconcept of absolute freedom of the will, that obscure and confuse concept (what Kant calls noumena-cause) would probably cease to make any sense to ordinary people, for exactly the same reason that the concept of Right also would, so people wouldnt intuitively percieve actions of other people the way we do now.
And rape has to do with love: it is a degenerated or disfunctional way of seeking recognition by another, inasmuch as the basic or abstract desire of love is sought after by means of turning the other into an obscure and confused image of a superficial object that can be consumed unilaterally, when, in reality (or "objectively", or, said in layman terms, outside the delusional mind of the rapist), that which is tried to be consumed can never actually be consumed, because it is a person, with a whole world inside it, with its own very complex activity that often times doesnt even exhaust with death. At best, what the rapist consumes in actuality is the abstract image (i.e., superficial concept of a woman that is sexually attractive in general under the local normative societal canon), only that not even that can be consumed, since the intense scarcity of recognition that lay at the foundation this extremely disfunctional behaviour als determines that drive so as to be impossible to satisfy through consumptive means, since it is impossible to earn recognition unilaterally from an object of consumption, but only from a person, community, oneself… i.e. from a properly percieved subject-subject relation in which both parties recognise themselves in an intentionally cooperative input.
>>2498120rape is 90% about power
Unique IPs: 77