5 ms·
This is nonsense born from classist contempt. Every day middle class people are struggling not with luxuries but with everyday essentials like housing. The cor
by djrobstep 7y ago
This is nonsense born from classist contempt. Every day middle class people are struggling not with luxuries but with everyday essentials like housing.
The correct response to this is not antinatalism but anticapitalism: Why should we have a system that systematically subjects people to financial hardship for having children?
It's easily fixed with a sensibly-designed welfare state, but we don't have one because we'd rather be judgemental to the poor about wanting "luxuries" like a decent house to live in.
- TuringNYC 7y agoIn the US, I’ve been hearing this point of view consistently amongst co-workers for almost two decades. But talk is cheap and if this was really something people wanted, especially the middle class, I imagine votes would go this way — in the US they do not. It doesn’t even seem to scratch the top 3 issues list.
- djrobstep 7y agoPeople do not make these choices in a vacuum. They are determined by the limited options available to vote for, and the enormous media and cultural resources dedicated to convincing people to vote against their own interests.
- dr_dshiv 7y agoI feel like the main misconception propogated by this argument is the idea that to be pro-welfare, one must be anti capitalist. In fact, socialism (Viz., state support of human needs not met by market) and capitalism (Viz., state support of health of market economy) go hand in hand. Markets are healthier when states selectively intervene to manage externalities, shocks, unemployed, education, health. Of course devil is in the details, but the point here is that capitalism and socialism are two different axes and, hypothetically, the best society maximises both.
- djrobstep 7y agoCapitalism doesn't mean "markets", just as socialism doesn't mean "not markets" (hence the existence of "market socialism" as a concept). The defining feature of capitalism is ownership of the means of production aka capital, by a capitalist class. Socialism is common ("social") ownership of the capital, and thus the abolition of the capitalist class.
- dr_dshiv 7y agoThis is why yours and similar arguments speak past other people. The defining feature of capitalism is private ownership and competitive markets. Against the accumulation of capital? Don't describe that as capitalism. Against monopolistic forces? Again, those forces are dangers to successful capitalistic systems. Marxists can define capitalism and socialism with precision. But when people defend capitalism and when people argue against capitalism, they are referring to different things. People defending capitalism are defending markets and "the invisible hand" as a mechanism for positive social development. People arguing against capitalism are arguing against monopolies and market distorting accumulations of wealth. Trying to convince people that capitalism doesn't mean markets is not a good rhetorical strategy. Instead, you might accomplish your goals better by helping people realize that socialism and govt regulation can lead to stronger, healthier markets. My overall point is that capitalists and anti-capitalists use different definitions of capitalism and therefore the arguments are doomed to futility.
- djrobstep 7y agoBut I do not care about "stronger, healthier markets" as a goal. What interests me is liberation from the market and collective ownership of capital. Capitalists generally do not care about markets in the abstract either: what motivates them is class domination. But they don't want to state that plainly, and so dress up the discourse with talk of markets, efficiency, etc etc.
- dr_dshiv 7y agoWhat is the appeal of liberation from the market? Aren't you participating now in a market of ideas? I don't know why you "other" capitalists. It doesn't seem right.
- taneq 7y agoIf you're struggling with essentials then you're not middle class.
- djrobstep 7y agoDisagree. Plenty of middle class people who struggle with housing costs. I'm one of them. If you know the state of Australia's housing market this is obvious.
- taneq 7y agoWhat definition of "middle class" are you using that includes "can't pay the rent/mortgage"? Note that losses from rental properties don't count as housing costs, that's just poor business return.
- djrobstep 7y agoWe were talking about people delaying/avoiding children for financial reasons. That doesn't imply "can't pay" necessarily, but when rent/mortgage payments are high, that leaves less spare cash floating around for the additional/unexpected expenses, a scary prospect. Even those on comfortable incomes can find them unexpectedly disappear.
- hoseja 7y agoI think taneq is implying that while you might beleive you're middle class, the fact of struggling with rent, by some definition of middle class, makes you not middle class.