apparent self-sacrifice -Reply

Jim Jaszewski ab975 at
Tue Jul 18 03:27:04 MDT 1995

On Tue, 18 Jul 1995, jones/bhandari wrote:

> >        MANY 'smart' people are not reproducing themselves (they'd much
> >rather watch TV or play with their computers [hmmm...] :) -- and then we
> >get anti-colored immigrant backlashes...
> Perhaps socialism could be defended as the  unfettering of the most
> advanced reproductive forces. Think of the tools that neo-luddites would
> have to break in this case.

	Hey! Nobody's gonna get their hands on MY tool!!   |>
	(unless it's a woman...)

> So sad that Richard Herrnstein croaked, he could have been the leader;
> could have made a socialist out of him, for true socialists should have
> the solutions to his concern that "high IQ women are not having enough
> children" as he lamented sometime in 1989 in the Atlantic Monthly.

	I'm out of my league here... who was this guy?

> Indeed it has been done before: "Catholic socialists on the continent had
> no difficulty in reconciling their pronatalism with the commitment to the
> liberation of the working class from the fetters of unbridled capitalism.
> Many followed Marx in excoriating Malthus as the pessismistic ideologist of
> the selfish bourgeoisie, an man who blamed the poorfor their poverty and
> opposed state welfare as counterproductive.

	I'm not for 'birth control for the poor and colored' either...
It's always been clear to me that if the 'West' wanted to control the
numbers in the 'South', all they had to do was help raise these people's
standards of living... (fat chance, eh?)

	Like many people, I also affirm a woman's right to abortion, but I
would hope that most would instead choose to go to term -- not least for
the reason it keeps human tissue out of the hands of commercial concerns
that trade in fetal organs for profit (check out the latest Discover
Magazine on the subject of fetal brain transplants...) The proper way to
practice birth control is to not get pregnant in the first place (so SCREW
the Vatican and 'il Papa'...)

  This is one of the themes of
> the scholarly work of the Italian radical politician and economist,
> Francesco S. Nitti, who later became prime minister after the First World
> War and received a Nobel Peace Prize for his work on behalf of the League
> of Nations. In a book published in 1893 and translated into French, German,
> and English [as well as the Asian language--just joking]on Population and
> the Social System, he developed the idea that a socialist society would be
> one with a fertility rate higher than that of a capitalist society, because
> socialism grew out of a commitment to collective rather than individual
> morality.  This view was based on the assertion 'that every system of
> morality which leads to individualism is contrary to a great fecundity of
> race, and that, on the other hand, every system of morality, which has as a
> fundamental principal social solidarity and mutual assistance is favorable
> to large birth rate."

	Quite interesting. Looks like he describes a part of our modern
capitalist society (and the Southern periphery) all right...

> Would the Chinese social system, grounded of course in a collective
> morality,  be an anomaly at this point?

	I would think that China would be an anomaly at ALL points!

> Quoted in the fascinating book The Fear of Population Decline by Michael
> Teitelbaum and Jay M. Winter. Orlando: Academic Press, Inc. 1985
> Declining fertility rates, the rise of strategic demography (related to
> Foucault's biopower?) and the obsession with differential birth rates are
> all terribly understudied by critical social scientists.  There is Sydney
> Coontz's old book Population Theories and the Economic Interpretation and
> Ricard Soloway's study of Victorian England Demography and Degeneration.

	I'm gonna hafta take a backseat to the experts here on this...


   Jim Jaszewski   <jjazz at>

   WWW homepage:   <>


     --- from list marxism at ---


More information about the Marxism mailing list