I think you’re right about the eugenecist / fascist tendencies aligned with Malthusianism.
Another factor to consider is that the overpopulation argument assumes that people in the ‘overpopulated areas’ – by which the Malthusians mean there global south and the places in the global north where immigrants live – want big families. But:
This isn’t necessarily true. There have been global campaigns to discourage the use of contraception in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. (Hello Mother Theresa.)
Due to the uneven geographical and economic development of capitalism, medical care is lacking in most parts of the world, so not everyone has access to e.g. contraception or ‘family planning’ advice even if it’s legal or accepted.
I remember this one from school, so I’m unsure how rigorous the reasoning is: the low wages and lack of pensions, social security, and healthcare in many parts of the global south means that people need bigger families because (a) family members may die young, and (b) otherwise there will not be enough people to help the elders and those who cannot work.
Richard Titmus, one of the architects of the British Welfare State (and unfortunately a eugenecist) showed that social security could be used to limit population growth. Now my memory is a little hazy here, and I’ve misplaced his book to check. I’m 80% sure it was him: he went to an island nation (possibly Mauritius) and helped the government set up a system to discourage people having more than two children (what else is a eugenecist to do on their holidays?). Anyway, the system worked, so far as I know. Population growth slowed. Essentially, IIRC, ‘families’ got very generous benefits if they had two children (yay), but then were penalised quite heavily for having three or more children (I did warn you: a eugenecist isn’t going to handle this kind of thing very well). My point is: if the wealth of the global south were not siphoned off to imperialists, the resources might be available to curb population growth without killing off or targeting certain groups. Caveat: I’m not saying this should be done or is necessary. It’s a question to be answered democratically by all the people of each place. But then we face the ‘problem’ (for want of a better word) that if there West stopped stealing from the South, population growth would likely slow down naturally: (a) current policies encourage and require ‘over population’ to create lots of workers and a reserve labour army; and (b) when conditions improve, people tend to have fewer children and later, to pursue e.g. career goals / higher education (although this may change if it were financially possible to have children and a career, etc).
Sorry, that was far more rambling than I intended. I started with good intentions and succinct bullet points, then, well, as you can see… Essentially, my point is: capitalism has created the conditions for current population levels. Whether this is manageable (it is, with better distribution) or seen as unmanageable (by Malthusians), the dynamic would shift in a socialist world (and so any ‘solution’ in a socialist world would have to solve a different population ‘problem’ than the existing, so called overpopulation).
Great post!
I think you’re right about the eugenecist / fascist tendencies aligned with Malthusianism.
Another factor to consider is that the overpopulation argument assumes that people in the ‘overpopulated areas’ – by which the Malthusians mean there global south and the places in the global north where immigrants live – want big families. But:
Sorry, that was far more rambling than I intended. I started with good intentions and succinct bullet points, then, well, as you can see… Essentially, my point is: capitalism has created the conditions for current population levels. Whether this is manageable (it is, with better distribution) or seen as unmanageable (by Malthusians), the dynamic would shift in a socialist world (and so any ‘solution’ in a socialist world would have to solve a different population ‘problem’ than the existing, so called overpopulation).