The problem here is that you are using a individualist idealist perspective. We Marxists do not follow moralistic lines of reasoning. Morals are arbitrary and idealistic while we live in a material world. Marx didn’t say taking surplus value was immoral, he knew no matter what he thought that socialism was inevitable because of objective material class struggle. You are using the morals of a sad westerner with no apparent culture, influenced by individualistic thought to condemn oppressed peoples who care about the their own culture that is under attack.
If it is immoral to have children that will live poorly then shouldn’t the whole global south be sterilized? This is a generic Malthusian position, but instead of being racist or thinking humans are themselves totally bad, you just think having children who will suffer is immoral. Shouldn’t this lead to the entire proletariat committing collective suicide, no, rich people aren’t happy other, maybe they shouldn’t be allowed to reproduce either. How about humanity just commits collective suicide because life inevitably includes some sort of suffering no matter the material conditions? Are you going to condemn the prey animals for having kids that will be eaten, next? Maybe the universe should just be dead considering every living being suffers.
I doubt you’d take your argument to that extreme so let’s examine why. Essential in the Malthusian view is the illusion that humanity and nature are separate. Many think people should stop having kids or simply die because they “care about the environment.” However, we are a part of nature. Pure unchanging nature is a myth. We emerged from nature and remain natural beings. We are no different in essence than something like a rabbit. We should seek balance with it as a part of it.
I hope you understand the absurdity of your argument now.
The problem here is that you are using a individualist idealist perspective. We Marxists do not follow moralistic lines of reasoning. Morals are arbitrary and idealistic while we live in a material world. Marx didn’t say taking surplus value was immoral, he knew no matter what he thought that socialism was inevitable because of objective material class struggle. You are using the morals of a sad westerner with no apparent culture, influenced by individualistic thought to condemn oppressed peoples who care about the their own culture that is under attack.
If it is immoral to have children that will live poorly then shouldn’t the whole global south be sterilized? This is a generic Malthusian position, but instead of being racist or thinking humans are themselves totally bad, you just think having children who will suffer is immoral. Shouldn’t this lead to the entire proletariat committing collective suicide, no, rich people aren’t happy other, maybe they shouldn’t be allowed to reproduce either. How about humanity just commits collective suicide because life inevitably includes some sort of suffering no matter the material conditions? Are you going to condemn the prey animals for having kids that will be eaten, next? Maybe the universe should just be dead considering every living being suffers.
I doubt you’d take your argument to that extreme so let’s examine why. Essential in the Malthusian view is the illusion that humanity and nature are separate. Many think people should stop having kids or simply die because they “care about the environment.” However, we are a part of nature. Pure unchanging nature is a myth. We emerged from nature and remain natural beings. We are no different in essence than something like a rabbit. We should seek balance with it as a part of it.
I hope you understand the absurdity of your argument now.