Many leftoids (synthetic communists) present the neomalthusian practice of abortion as 'progressive'. They therefore champion abortion in their nations as celebration of the individual. To display their "leftist" credentials they point to the Soviet Union as being one of the first countries to allow abortion to further their nihilistic, hedonistic and individualist political programs.
When asked why the Soviet Union then explicitly outlawed it the typical tripe served up is that "Stalin banned abortion compared to Lenin allowing it." It is used to justify hedonistic and individualistic values under the guise of 'progressive Marxism'.
So widespread is this myth that it can be spread by nothing less than opportunists and distorters of Marxism. The truth is somewhat different.
Instead the truth is the Soviets allowed it during the civil war and famines of 1918-1920 and the particular privation the Soviet people suffered. Nikolai Semashko was appointed by Lenin as Commissar of Health from 1918-1930 and in the clause that allowed abortion was an explicit statement that abortion was not an individual right, could depress the birth rate and that it should be practiced in only extreme cases.
-David L Hoffman, Cultivating the Masses, P101Soviet leaders were also extremely concerned about the effect of contraception and abortion on their country’s birthrate. The Soviet government had legalized abortion in November 1920. The decree noted the growing number of illegal abortions (due to extreme economic hardship in the wake of the Civil War), and in the interest of women’s health allowed free abortions in hospitals provided that they were performed by doctors. The decree, however, never recognized abortion as a woman’s right. Indeed Semashko explicitly stated at the time that abortion was not an individual right, that it could depress the birthrate and hurt the interests of the state, and that it should be practiced only in extreme cases.
Nikolai Semashko was to hold prominent positions in the Health, familial and childcare through his entire life. From 1930-1936 he served as a member of the Presidium and the chairman of the Commission for the Improvement of Children's Lives.
1945-1949 he was Director of the Institute for School Health of the RSFSR, and at the same time (1947–49) of the Institute for Health and History of Medicine of the Academy of Medical Sciences (since 1965 the Research Institute of the Semashko Social Hygiene and Public Health Organization).
He was a founder of the Central Medical Library (1918) and of the House of Scientists (1922) in Moscow, editor-in-chief of the Great Medical Encyclopedia (1927-1936), the first chairman of the Supreme Council for Physical Education and Sports (from 1923), chairman of the All-Union Hygiene Society (1940–49), and delegate to the 10th, 12th, and 16th Party Congresses. He was awarded the Order of Lenin, the Order of the Red Banner of Labour, and medals.
During the anti-abortion campaign he decisively came in favour of banning abortion.
IbidSemashko, now the former commissar of health, warned that abortion not only could cause infertility, but that it could have an adverse effect on a woman’s other organs and nervous system. But he also justified the ban on abortion as crucial to “the state task of increasing the population of the Soviet Union.” He went on to compare the fertility rate of the Soviet Union with those of other industrialized countries and argued that the abortion ban would allow the country to maintain or even increase its superior birthrate.
We see the so-called 'Lenninists' who claim the banning of abortion was a "Stalinist" deviation are exposed as opportunists.
Semashko was the one and same man who 'legalised' abortion in the 1920s (though this is incorrect as it never was an individual "right"). He was also one and the same that banned it on the Central Executive Committee under Stalin after having seen the deleterious effects of abortion on Soviet society.
But if more may be said on the Leninist understanding of Neomalthusianism please find Lenins article (and due to it's brief size) reproduced here in full.
The Marxist-Leninist View On Abortion
V I Lenin: The Working Class and NeoMalthusianism
Communism Is Pro-Natalism, Pro Human Beings And For The Unlimited Acceleration of the Forces Of ProductionAt the Pirogov Doctors’ Congress much interest was aroused and a long debate was held on the question of abortions. The report was made by Lichkus, who quoted figures on the exceedingly widespread practice of destroying the foetus in present-day so-called civilised states.
In New York, 80,000 abortions were performed in one year and there are 36,000 every month in France. In St. Petersburg the percentage of abortions has more than doubled in five years.
The Pirogov Doctors’ Congress adopted a resolution saying that there should never be any criminal prosecution of a mother for performing an artificial abortion and that doctors should only be prosecuted if the operation is performed for “purposes of gain”.
In the discussion the majority agreed that abortions should not be punishable, and the question of the so-called neomalthusianism (the use of contraceptives) was naturally touched upon, as was also the social side of the matter. Mr. Vigdorchik, for instance, said, according to the report in Russkoye Slovo, that “contraceptive measures should be welcomed” and Mr. Astrakhan exclaimed, amidst thunderous applause:
“We have to convince mothers to bear children so that they can be maimed in educational establishments, so that lots can be drawn for them, so that they can be driven to suicide!”
If the report is true that this exclamation of Mr. Astrakhan’s was greeted with thunderous applause, it is a fact that does not surprise me. The audience was made up of bourgeois, middle and petty bourgeois, who have the psychology of the philistine. What can you expect from them but the most banal liberalism?
From the point of view of the working class, however, it would hardly be possible to find a more apposite expression of the completely reactionary nature and the ugliness of “social neomalthusianism” than Mr. Astrakhan’s phrase cited above.
... “Bear children so that they can be maimed” ... For that alone? Why not that they should fight better, more unitedly, consciously and resolutely than we are fighting against the present-day conditions of life that are maiming and ruining our generation?
This is the radical difference that distinguishes the psychology of the peasant, handicraftsman, intellectual, the petty bourgeois in general, from that of the proletarian. The petty bourgeois sees and feels that he is heading for ruin, that life is becoming more difficult, that the struggle for existence is ever more ruthless, and that his position and that of his family are becoming more and more hopeless. It is an indisputable fact, and the petty bourgeois protests against it.
But how does he protest?
He protests as the representative of a class that is hopelessly perishing, that despairs of its future, that is depressed and cowardly. There is nothing to be done ... if only there were fewer children to suffer our torments and hard toil, our poverty and our humiliation—such is the cry of the petty bourgeois.
The class-conscious worker is far from holding this point of view. He will not allow his consciousness to be dulled by such cries no matter how sincere and heartfelt they may be. Yes, we workers and the mass of small proprietors lead a life that is filled with unbearable oppression and suffering. Things are harder for our generation than they were for our fathers. But in one respect we are luckier than our fathers. We have begun to learn and are rapidly learning to fight—and to fight not as individuals, as the best of our fathers fought, not for the slogans of bourgeois speechifiers that are alien to us in spirit, but for our slogans, the slogans of our class. We are fighting better than our fathers did. Our children will fight better than we do, and they will be victorious.
The working class is not perishing, it is growing, becoming stronger, gaining courage, consolidating itself, educating itself and becoming steeled in battle. We are pessimists as far as serfdom, capitalism and petty, production are concerned, but we are ardent optimists in what concerns the working-class movement and its aims. We are already laying the foundation of a new edifice and our children will complete its construction.
That is the reason—the only reason—why we are unconditionally the enemies of neomalthusianism, suited only to unfeeling and egotistic petty-bourgeois couples, who whisper in scared voices: “God grant we manage somehow by our selves. So much the better if we have no children.”
It goes without saying that this does not by any means prevent us from demanding the unconditional annulment of all laws against abortions or against the distribution of medical literature on contraceptive measures, etc. Such laws are nothing but the hypocrisy of the ruling classes. These laws do not heal the ulcers of capitalism, they merely turn them into malignant ulcers that are especially painful for the oppressed masses. Freedom for medical propaganda and the protection of the elementary democratic rights of citizens, men and women, are one thing. The social theory of neomalthusianism is quite another. Class-conscious workers will always conduct the most ruthless struggle against attempts to impose that reactionary and cowardly theory on the most progressive and strongest class in modern society, the class that is the best prepared for great changes.
The Marxist understanding of human beings is that human labour power makes up the forces of production.
Karl Marx, The German Ideology"The production of life, both of one’s own in labour and of fresh life in procreation... appears as a double relationship: on the one hand as a natural, on the other as a social relationship. By social we understand the co-operation of several individuals, no matter under what conditions, in what manner and to what end. It follows from this that a certain mode of production, or industrial stage, is always combined with a certain mode of co-operation, or social stage, and this mode of co-operation is itself a “productive force.”
Human labour power makes up the forces of production which must be unleashed in order to precisely break from our current (capitalist) specific mode of production.
Writing in The German Ideology Karl Marx states
We see how the development of the productive forces can only be managed by a pro human, pro labour power view. Anything else would result necessarily in the stagnation of Productive Forces and the general maintenance of capitalism forever. Aging populations do not revolt, do not produce revolutions and every revolution in history preceded a population boom.And, on the other hand, this development of productive forces (which at the same time implies the actual empirical existence of men in their world-historical, instead of local, being) is an absolutely necessary practical premise, because without it privation, want is merely made general, and with want the struggle for necessities would begin again, and all the old filthy business would necessarily be restored; and furthermore, because only with this universal development of productive forces is a universal intercourse between men established, which on the one side produces in all nations simultaneously the phenomenon of the "propertyless" mass (univer- sal competition), making each nation dependent on the revolutions of the others, and finally puts world-historical, empirically universal individuals in place of local ones. Without this, 1) communism could only exist as a local phenomenon; 2) the forces of intercourse themselves could not have developed as universal, hence unendurable powers: they would have remained home-bred "conditions" surrounded by superstition; and 3) each extension of intercourse would abolish local communism. Empirically, communism is only possible as the act of the dominant peoples "all at once" and simultaneously, 19 which presupposes the universal development of productive forces and the world intercourse bound up with them.*
Europe, that continent of pure reaction (arguably more reactionary than USA given in recent years how it was Britain and France that forced the destruction of Libya. It is the British politicking in the USA to court the most reactionary elements of US society) has the average ages of middle aged people. Middle aged people do not revolt. They've already obtained their creature comforts, their access to sex, their nihilistic worldviews and goal of their lives in obtaining as much pleasure as can be begot.
The Mother Heroine In The Soviet Union
The Soviets understood this and issued the "Mother Heroine" medal for mothers who had 10 or more children.
Whilst issuing the Order of Maternal Glory to women who had 7, 8 or 9 children
Revisionists In China Get Played By Anglo Eugenicists And Implement The "One Child" Policy
The Chinese Communists also understood this. Mao initially argued that having a large and rapidly increasing population was a blessing for China, rather than a curse. It was only with the rise of the revisionists that mandatory birth control came into practice whilst Mao was alive in the 1970s.
The One child policy was implemented after Mao's death with the rise of Deng Xiao Peng. In what must be considered one of the greatest 'soft power' foreign policy moves to ever be displayed the One Child policy was implemented by a mathmatician, Song Jian.
Song Jian worked in ballistic missile trajectories. His first visit to the West he sat down with a beer with Dutch professor, Geert Jan Olsder, at the Seventh Triennnial World Congress of the International Federation of Automatic Control in Helsinki to discuss “control theory”.
Olsder told Song about the book, Limits To Growth, a work of outright fraudulence, bunk science and nonsense predicting the collapse of civilisation. Song took Limits to Growth as fact not knowing that even upon it's release it produced
Susan Greenlaugh, Missile Science, Population Science: The Origins of China's One-Child Policy, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals ... 4D35BC4146In the West, the Club of Rome work had provoked an outcry from social scientists concerned about the application of cybernetics’ mechanistic models to the solution of human problems.
Limits to Growth was funded by the Club of Rome which was founded by David Rockefeller, a member of the NeoMalthusian institute. Not only did Song take Limits to Growth as scientific fact (instead of contrived propaganda for Rockefellers eugenics programs as we shall see) but he also returned to it's source, Thomas Malthus.
https://www.mattridley.co.uk/blog/china ... rn-greens/“When I was thinking about this, I took Malthus’s book to research the study of population,” said Song in a recent interview.
By 1979 Song had won the ear of Deng Xiao Peng and bamboozled him with his mathmatics and complex models.
IbidEven China’s birthrate had halved in the seven years before Song had his epiphany, thanks to improved public health, and it would have fallen even faster in the next decade as China began to grow economically. But Song wanted to put his “control theory” into action and set about persuading those in power to put him in charge. By the end of 1979 he had won the ear of Deng Xiaoping and, with the help of mathematical bamboozling, had vanquished his opponents.
China's One Child policy was the brain child of David Rockefeller, one of the most prominent capitalist-eugenicists of the late 20th century. David Rockefeller was instrumental in setting up the Tri Lateral Commission. Zbigniew Brzezinski cofounded the Tri Lateral Commission. The man who was the brain child behind the "Afghan trap". That is arm Jihadis in Afghanistan to force the Soviets to intervene. Rockefeller also funded the Club of Rome and the Population Council who looked into forcibly sterilising people.
The Bourgeoisie's View On Abortion, Humanity And It's Cult Of Death
With the rise of the British Empire reaching it's zenith a new ideology needed to be taken up by it's parasitic and decadent bourgeoisie in order to justify it's ill gotten gains and the poverty it pushed on the rest of humanity. Malthus came on the scene telling the bourgeoisie exactly what they wanted to hear. That a load of useless eaters were taking up too much resources and that we should court the return of the plague and famines on the proletariat to reduce their number.
https://www.econlib.org/library/Malthus ... um=47#dd12It is an evident truth that, whatever may be the rate of increase in the means of subsistence, the increase of population must be limited by it, at least after the food has once been divided into the smallest shares that will support life. All the children born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to this level, must necessarily perish, unless room be made for them by the deaths of grown persons. It has appeared indeed clearly in the course of this work, that in all old states the marriages and births depend principally upon the deaths, and that there is no encouragement to early unions so powerful as a great mortality. To act consistently therefore, we should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavouring to impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality; and if we dread the too frequent visitation of the horrid form of famine, we should sedulously encourage the other forms of destruction, which we compel nature to use. Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague. In the country, we should build our villages near stagnant pools, and particularly encourage settlements in all marshy and unwholesome situations.
Malthus was a discredited moron who conceived of resources as stocks in a cupboard and that if X more people are born then resources are depleted quicker resulting in societal collapse, famines etc.
As if 'time' hasn't dispelled the black hand of Malthus enough as pretty much every generation has been richer than before, please read the notes I've taken or the entire book by Julian Simone from the Ultimate Resource 2.
Resources are not distributed this way. With more people there becomes more efficient production, more concentrated production. Farmers do not farm more food than is necessary. When resources do become scarce they produce a space race in the human population that then goes out in search of either more of that resource or a replacement for that resource. This 'space race' leaves humanity better off than if it had never encountered this scarcity. The final examination is that man is not an animal but a highly intelligent and capable self destined creature that can reach ever greater heights.
Like all subsequent Malthusians since, in Malthus's lifetime the date of collapse came and went. Malthus then 'revised' his theory insisting it was "still correct" and that the collapse of society would still happen but at a later date.
The Bourgeoisie - that most decadent and corrupt and anti-human class - then propagated Malthusian ideology amongst the US ruling class when the United States reached it's zenith after World War 2. Having captured and indebted the entirety of Europe and Japan with those 2 looking to the United States to supply industrial capacity as European and Japanese industrial capacity had been destroyed.
One of the United States foremost Malthusians in the post war period was Paul Erhlich. A bourgeois professor from the United States came to fame with his book titled the Population Bomb. Corrupting society with the very blatant and obvious message that babies and people itself were a threat.
Ehrlich was a bourgeois professor working at Stanford university. It is worth remembering that in the 1910s and 1920s it was the bourgeois "Science" coming from the hallowed halls of Stanford, Princeton and Harvard that popularised "Scientific racism" and eugenics programs that would eventually be taken up by the Germans in the 1930s. His book used many of the same idiot references to resources and predictions that Malthus used and every Malthusian has used after him. His book predicted mass starvation and famine by the 1970s.
When interviewed about this in 2004 he acknowledged his predictions were incorrect but reaffirmed his basic opinion that overpopulation is a major problem. In the 1960s however he was advocating:
Dixie Lee Ray Trashing the Planet , P168"recommends reducing the population by force, saying: "Several coercive proposales deserve serious consideration, mainly because we will ultimately have to resot to them, unless current trends in birth rates are revised". Among Ehrlich's coercive proposolas for the United States are deindustrialisation, liberalised abortion and tax breaks for people who have themselves sterilised. . Ehrlich has many supporters in the environmental movement:
Kenneth Boulding, originator of the "Spaceship Earth" concept: "The right to have children should be a marketable commodity, bought and traded by individuals but absolutely limited by the State".
From the Earth First! newsletter: "If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human population back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS. Aids has the potential to end industrialism, which is the main force behind the enviornmental crisis."
David Rockefeller was a well known Malthusian and one of the principle leaders of US bourgeois. His foundation is infamous for being a "State within the US State". In the 1960s he formed the Population Council who were tasked with reducing the human population. The Jaffe Memo was created and in one page so much is said:
In 1974 Kissinger issued the infamous National Security Memorandum 200 (nicknamed the "Kissinger Report") in which the following was outlined
https://www.reteccp.org/NWO/kissinger-report.pdfPopulation growth of foreign nations provides more geopolitical power and possible opposition to US interests
The United States relies on countries being underdeveloped in order to easily obtain natural resources
High birth rates result with more younger individuals who oppose established governments
American businesses are vulnerable to interference by foreign governments that are required to provide for growing populations
The Bourgeoisies insistence on forced sterilisations, popularising planned parenthood abortion clinics (which were massively placed in Black neighbourhoods to destroy the black nation inside the US state) show that the bourgeoisie must fetter productive forces by using population control methods. All for purposes of retarding technical development and forces of production. Abortion is therefore a tool of the bourgeoisie and should be utterly opposed by class conscious workers.
The so-called communists that find themselves "championing abortion" would do well too look at who's company they keep and which class stands fully behind them.
Popularisation of the Cult Of Death, Abortion For the 'Environment'
The bourgeoisie is actively trying to destroy the proletariats future. In this they have popularised an apocalyptic version climate change (previously "global cooling" then "global warming") which insists that the world is about to end due to co2 which makes up an infinitesimally small amount of warming. If the world is indeed about to end due to co2 these 'policies' could become justifiable in the name of "saving the human race".
This article's focus is on the Soviet position of abortion but it is necessary to point out some basic things before RedArmy.Online gets around to properly tackling the fake science of the Malthusian Climate industry so a few points will be made here in how the eugenics movement created the environmental movement, how this fraud has been perpetrated on the population as a form of psychological warfare and for the politics of depopulation.
Here it is enough to say that the fraudulent Silent Spring and Limits to Growth, both written by eugenicists, were the launching of the modern environmental movement and that the environmental movement has been predicting collapse every 10 years ever since. The promise of apocalypse is enough to blunt optimistic revolutionary feeling and imbue pessimism in the population.
It is well to point out that Population Council had imbue the population with "chronic depression" as one of it's main bullet points in the Jaffe Memo discussed above.
ClimateGate - The Fraud of Bourgeois Academia
In 2009 many emails were leaked to wikileaks showing the United Nations IPCC as a completely corrupt institute publishing false science.
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/ClimategateSeveral referenced emails contain joking remarks about how they massaged statistics, i.e.
truncating the temperature and time axis on diagrams
omitting data from measurement stations that were "too cold to be included"
failing to mention contradicting information, i.e.
polar ice data from Patagonia (the other pole, where ice is increasing)
failing to report standard deviations or volatility measures
failing to mention conflicts of interest, explicit joking about easy available grants and salaries
omitting a decent timeline of several thousand years
One of the main 'scientists' on the IPCC falsified the infamous "hockey stick" graph by removing the medieval warm period.
Phil Jones was forced to admit
https://web.archive.org/web/20100217190 ... nised.htmlThe data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.
Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
For those that have lived through the Covid period should understand that bourgeois science is completely and totally corrupt.The implementations for the climate and Covid have been for social-control measures as Western hegemony collapses. A further article(possibly even book with this much data) will be written detailing the full history of the Climate movement which has the black hand of eugenics behind it.