Because since 1848, we’ve seen great strides in the whole Marxist revolution working out?

It is exactly such situations that offer struggle. Humans are built to engage in struggle. — universeness

This is bad faith.

Because since 1848, we’ve seen great strides in the whole Marxist revolution working out — schopenhauer1

Besides being historically false (re: social revolution), it's also irrelevant to what your opening post argues. Additionally, history is not destiny, and certainly not the last 174 years of history.

This privately owned situation is near impossible to change. — schopenhauer1

Capitalist realism just isn't compatible with Marxism, let alone an antinatalism motivated by capitalist realism. Don't believe that capitalism is a metaphysical (re: necessary and immutable) order, rather than a historical one that can be replaced.

social revolution — Maw

Hippies in the 60s? What are we talking? Can’t be civil rights movement.

Additionally, history is not destiny, and certainly not the last 174 years of history. — Maw

No it isn’t but I mean, where’s the revolution? Seems further away than ever before.

Hippies in the 60s? What are we talking? Can’t be civil rights movement. — schopenhauer1

Christ dude you've been on a philosophy forum for seven years and somehow the French Revolution, the Haitian Revolution, the Civil War, the Russian Revolution, etc. escape you as examples in which presumed immutable social conditions dissolved. Social, economic, political conditions are not permanent. You need to get it through your head that to suggest otherwise is inconsistent with Marxism.

Straw men. The ones that stuck weren’t Marxist. There is no us slavery, France eventually had a democracy of sorts, Haiti did become its own nation. None of these were Marxist. Russian ended in a whimper and is now owned by oligarchs and a czarist styled dictator.

examples in which presumed immutable social conditions dissolved. — Maw

examples in which presumed immutable social conditions dissolved. — Maw

examples in which presumed immutable social conditions dissolved. — Maw

examples in which presumed immutable social conditions dissolved. — Maw

I’m not arguing about immutable social conditions which I never brought up in the first place. Just Marxism.

This privately owned situation is near impossible to change.
It follows that it would then be best to not expose new people into this unjust, intractable situation. — schopenhauer1

:gasp:

Marxisms were tried and failed. All you got is the Nordic model at best.

Marxisms were tried and failed. All you got is the Nordic model at best. — schopenhauer1

wow then I guess Marxists shouldn't have kids, you absolutely nailed it dude, congrats!

Haven’t even seen an inkling of a groundswell of Marxist anything. At best you’re getting legislation for 32 hour work weeks but doubtful. Antinatalism doesn’t need to rely on the whole system changing. Marxism most definitely does. Antinatalism is an ethic any individual can take on. There is no end goal to society, only one less person to suffer who would have. In Marxist terms..one less worker to do the struggle dance. I don’t see why Marxist’s shouldn’t use situational AN to their advantage. Boycotting more workers till true change. Not worth perpetuating capitalist goals.

It is exactly such situations that offer struggle. Humans are built to engage in struggle.
— universeness

This is bad faith. — schopenhauer1

It's no big surprise that the antinatalist in you would respond so, to such an inconvenient truth

A Marxist in a capitalist environment will either call for a revolution - to create a Marxist jannat - or opt for anitnatalism - graceful exit. Is a capitalist society child-friendly or should it come with warning labels such as Keep away from children? Most children die of disease and poverty and the countries with the highest child morbidity & mortality rates have capitalist economies, oui monsieur/mademoiselle?

Insofar as society has changed since Marx, there are no real ‘Marxists’ as far as people who build on his work exactly as it was. We are interpreting and modifying in accordance with modern life. But there are ways to act out his thought other than nationally.

Anything ending with ‘ism’ that was generated by popular culture and isn’t a coherent body of thought, is just a name given to some sort of excessive or exaggerated belief (positivism, deteriorationism, etc.). If there’s no coherence, you don’t have a true ‘ism.’ Where is the rationality in antinatalism?

rather than a historical one that can be replaced. — _db

Until then, why produce more workers? Situational AN seems appropriate. They are feeding exactly that which they loathe.

Where is the rationality in antinatalism? — kudos

What do you mean? There are lots of arguments that are coherent and "rational". I'm just saying, Marxists want a complete change in the way we do our socioeconomic-political arrangements. Until that time, it would make sense to not put more proletariats into the capitalists' grip.

By this you mean the slowly evaporating working class will more and more make their values the subject of social exclusion and stigma?

I’m not totally clear about where antinatalism fits into all this. Do you mean a Marxist would find it immoral to raise children under a system so contrary to their version of social good? It’s not clear if Marx had ever claimed to have created a blueprint for a good world; could you define this good you claim Marxists are looking for?

TCM was producing a superstructure from the aims and premises of capitalism; in some ways refining it. ‘Buy local,’ ‘return of analog,’ the need for nations to become economically self-reliant, and the need for stability in the meaning of currency are some examples of social phenomena that intersect with Marx’s ideas, but they have mostly been subversive ideas.

We have a future that is somewhat bleak for those who are emotionally invested in consciously building this superstructure. However, I don’t think it’s solely a personified reality-authoring that Marx and Engels had in mind. It is also a type of refinement of existing attitudes and values to their ideological core.

Do you mean a Marxist would find it immoral to raise children under a system so contrary to their version of social good? — kudos

This.

It’s not clear if Marx had ever claimed to have created a blueprint for a good world; could you define this good you claim Marxists are looking for? — kudos

Unexploited, unalienated worker paradise I guess. If it's not a better world under Marxist structure, then of course, the whole thing is meaningless as a goal to seek.

We have a future that is somewhat bleak for those who are emotionally invested in consciously building this superstructure. — kudos

Agreed there.

However, I don’t think it’s solely a personified reality-authoring that Marx and Engels had in mind. It is also a type of refinement of existing attitudes and values to their ideological core. — kudos

I don't think so. I think they had a project for a new way of socioeconomic life.

It’s not clear if Marx had ever claimed to have created a blueprint for a good world; could you define this good you claim Marxists are looking for?
— kudos

Unexploited, unalienated worker paradise ... — schopenhauer1

Communism.

Reality is too messy for "paradise". I've sketched a quasi-convergence of "Marxism & antinatalism" in an old post (elaborated further in a second link embedded therein) to which you did not directly reply:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/624891 (re: post-Marxist stakeholder political economy (e.g. "green" economic democracy), or a radicalization of the Nordic model that "withers away" corporate welfare statism). Minimize structural alientation (i.e. anti-democratic inequalities) in order to minimize structural imbalances (mal-distribution of "social goods" which reproduces / exacerbates intractable social pathologies). I agree with old Marxists and Bakuninists/Kropotkinists: radically less hyper-consumption (shareholder-control) – not merely less worker-descendants (fewer stakeholders) who are, in fact, the raison d'etre of revolutionary struggles.

I don't think so. I think they had a project for a new way of socioeconomic life.

Was there ever a call out directly for radical change? Besides, what’s so radical about the working class controlling their path in collective will power? We consider that normal today in the form of guilds, unionization, labour parties, and practically nobody dares call themselves a Marxist.

TCM was less than a hundred pages long and it didn’t contain the itinerary for socioeconomic life in detail, but set forth the types of ideas that life would be built upon; how capitalism could revitalize itself from the core identity. I’m not an expert on Marx so someone can please correct me if I’m wrong, but the subject of Communist government did not represent a large portion of Marx’s work.

I've sketched a quasi-convergence of "Marxism & antinatalism" in an old post (elaborated further in a second link embedded therein) to which you did not directly reply: — 180 Proof

I just didn't know how to reply to it. Interesting.

All of this just doesn't seem likely. Until then, best not throw more workers into the mix.

Was there ever a call out directly for radical change? Besides, what’s so radical about the working class controlling their path in collective will power? We consider that normal today in the form of guilds, unionization, labour parties, and practically nobody dares call themselves a Marxist.

TCM was less than a hundred pages long and it didn’t contain the itinerary for socioeconomic life in detail, but set forth the types of ideas that life would be built upon; how capitalism could revitalize itself from the core identity. I’m not an expert on Marx so someone can please correct me if I’m wrong, but the subject of Communist government did not represent a large portion of Marx’s work. — kudos

He wanted a world revolution that eventually gave power to the state which "withered away" to a classless society controlled by proletariat-led councils. It seems the lack of details lead to "appending to" his thought (e.g. Leninism, Maoism, etc.).

But either way, I personally can't get on board with most forms of Marxism because of its tendency for "group-think", its impatience (and then downright persecution of) free thought/speech/press, and its tendency towards dictatorship (Stalin/Mao) or oligarchy (Russian and Chinese politburos). Granted, no state ever "got it right", it's telling that the application ended up being various templates of the same thing.

All of this just doesn't seem likely. Until then, best not throw more workers into the mix. — schopenhauer1

Well, then don't breed, comrade.