Imperialist country wimmin are having fewer and fewer children. The New York Times finally ran an article in August admitting that the "population bomb" of 1960s lore looks like a dud. In 1968, the UN worried about 12 billion people existing in 2050. Now 9 billion seems likely--still a 50% increase from now.(1) The decline is both in the imperialist countries and the Third World-- the whole world.

The underlying reason that population theorist Malthus is proving wrong again this time (and Mao right by the way) is the dynamics of leisure-time. After centuries of being coerced into having children by parents and grandparents and by the economic necessity of having someone as a caretaker in old age, we are now seeing a drop-off in the birth rate. Whereas it used to be necessary to have maybe 10 children to see two survive, now parents have fewer and fewer children in the rich countries, because health-care is good enough to see most children survive and because wimmin now have more opportunities open to them than in the past.

As a larger portion of wimmin work in the rich countries, we see that on average wimmin are choosing to put their time into career and non- children-oriented leisure-time lives rather than children-oriented leisure-time lives. Many richer wimmin have figured out that they will not die if they have no children. Thanks to various lacks of opportunity and superstitions, wimmin only rarely came to that conclusion in the past.

This is not to say it is the case of every single imperialist country womyn to give up motherhood-- of course not. Many still choose "traditional family." The point is the percentages or average.

Although U.$. population is not declining, it has ceased growing in the old patterns. According to a Rutgers study, "just one-third of American households--are choosing to have children. That's down from 80 percent in the mid-1800s and 50 percent in 1960. By 2010, the US Census Bureau projects just one-quarter of all American households will have children living in them."(2)

No matter who preaches, a powerful trend like the one we are seeing now does not alter course. The Pope is famous for advocating no birth control and large families--especially relative to Protestantism. Yet, in Italy, a recent poll found 52% of females aged 16 to 24 plan to have no children.(3) It's powerful proof of Marx's science that ideas do not move history: underlying material forces do.

"By 2000, Italy's fertility rate was Western Europe's lowest, at 1.2 births per woman. Its population is expected to drop 20 percent by midcentury.

"Italy plummeted right past wealthy, liberal, Protestant Denmark, where women got birth control early. Denmark was below population replacement level in 1970, at 2.0 births per woman, and slid to 1.7 by 2001."(1)

The United $tates is averaging 2.13 births per womyn,(1) enough to break even in population. The crypto-racists like Patrick Buchanan are concerned that within that white wimmin have given up on Christian family like the Europeans.

Apparently, having a Pope in the backyard is not good enough, so self-professed "counterrevolutionary" Patrick Buchanan has given praise to fascist Franco, the general in Spain who took power with help from Mussolini and Hitler.(4) Yet, even there, the land of Franco has reached a point where it has the lowest birthrate in Europe according to Buchanan.

Even in the least Westernized of the major white race countries--Russia-- Buchanan recounts that population will fall from 147 million to 114 million by 2050 thanks to a birthrate of 1.35 children per womyn.(4)

One of the biggest changes for wimmin since Mao's absolutely revolutionary advances for wimmin is occurring right now in Japan, where the taboo against wimmin staying unmarried after 30 is suddenly gone with more than half unmarried after 30.(5) In 1985, 30.6% of Japanese wimmin were unmarried in their late 20s. Now it is 54%.(6) Among couples, the average produces 1.32 children,(6) when 2.08 is necessary to replace Japanese population.

Here's another interesting leisure-time dynamic-- Japan's check-ins at love hotels are off 20% or more in the last five years. Love hotels used to have one purpose dedicated to a couple hours of action. Now they have shifted to Karaoke and video games.(6)

Meanwhile, Japanese divorce has also increased from 1.3 divorces per 1000 people in 1990 to 2.3 in 2002, which is still below the U.$. 4.0 per 1000 people.(6)

The most revealing of all is that economic factors appear to underlie the new choices of wimmin. Young wimmin live with prosperous parents who do not have overcrowded houses as they did 50 or 100 years ago. The perception of both male and female singles in Japan is that living together with the opposite sex would result in a decrease in living standards-- 59.9% in the case of wimmin who live with their parents and 58.2% of men who live with their parents. Even among singles living apart from their parents, most perceive not much gain in shacking up. Only 20.9% see their living standards would increase that way among wimmin singles and 14.2% among men.(6) These economic and sociological complexities have found their expression in the idea that "the good men are all married." "Good men" translates as sufficiently richer than the wimmin's parents that Japanese single wimmin would not feel a disadvantage of doing chores around the house.

In many ways, the Japanese situation is the most revealing of all the imperialist country situations, because the situation of Japanese wimmin had been most backward of the imperialist countries--with no permission for careers or staying unmarried after 30 up until recently.

Today we see that Japan may have to choose between letting wimmin work or taking in immigrants, something very psychologically difficult for the Japanese labor aristocracy and rulers. A survey has also uncovered what really used to keep the Japanese family glued together-- not love, but money. It just so happens that in this odd moment in history, Japanese wimmin expect to have a lower standard of living if they marry Japanese men. It is better to live with one's parents economically- speaking--not in every case, but on average. So now, Japanese wimmin have lost interest in Japanese men--not in every case but on average. This shows in the statistics and disproves ages of received "wisdom" on the family.

The Japanese case definitely reinforces MIM's theory that leaves open the possibility that sex may disappear as non-sexual coercion of wimmin disappears. It certainly seems that if desire is only the eroticization of power, when power disappears, desire may also. Already Japanese report having sex less than one third as much as Amerikans--36 times a year to 124 for Americans.(6)

The Japanese statistics raise the question whether Japanese men will be able to change a few cultural habits and then woo Japanese wimmin again or whether there is a more profound trend, even more radical than that by Japanese and international standards. Right now it looks like the truth may very well be that Japanese wimmin submitted for centuries as a favor to men and as a factor in peace at home. Now that wimmin are OK economically in Japan without boyfriends or husbands, the romance culture goes out the window--not in every single case but in the majority.

The reactionaries may oppose the trend by giving ever steeper tax cuts to people who have children. As that becomes the only way to bribe people into having family, the traditional brainwashing on the family will stand only more exposed. The risk is that the entire people will realize that money holds the whole thing together.

MIM does not have a theory for all the leisure- time reasons that well-off people prefer a life of partying or socializing to a life of raising children. The invention of the pill may be an explanation for some of the increased leisure-time spent enjoying life instead of raising children. However, we can say that the facts prove that coercion was an essential part of the family unit prior to the economic prosperity and independence of wimmin seen in the imperialist countries today. There is no other possible explanation for why better-off wimmin choose to have fewer children or forego gender relations entirely as in Japan.

Even Patrick Buchanan admitted the truth about wimmin's choices--if only in one sentence in a whole book in which he tries to invalidate those choices: "This is not a matter of conspiracy but of consensus, of free choice. European women have decided they want one or two children, or none, and they have the means--contraception, sterilization, and abortion."(7)

Birth rates are higher in more coercive cultures. Whether referred to as a duty to God, country or family, the raising of children by many wimmin in the past looks rather forced, now that we see what wimmin would do in better-off circumstances economically-speaking. MIM would like to see the coercion of wimmin in the family unit reduced internationally.

MIM celebrates the choices of the white wimmin to become more independent and enjoy themselves. It means that many fewer troops available to destroy Iraq, occupy Korea, Haiti and Afghanistan etc. In the short and medium-run the facts of war and peace are much more important than anything about population.

The facts of population growth are pointing to serious cranky white nationalist outbursts in the coming years. The strategy of Patrick Buchanan is out in the open in his book The Death of the West: "Only a social counterrevolution or a religious awakening can turn the West around before a falling birthrate closes off the last exit ramp and rings down the curtain on Western Man's long-running play. But not a sign of either can be seen on the horizon."(1) In order to save "Western civilization" from population suicide, Buchanan has become the official theorist of the Amerikkkan trailer trash. "Go Bubba, go! Get your honey to squeeze out another rug-rat!" Talk about the barbarians from within!

He has seen correctly that the demographic trend toward aging disproportionately affects the imperialist countries and that means the white race. Repeatedly he says that he has to admit that the Western culture he cherishes may be doomed.(1)

Buchanan does not give any reason for why he wants to preserve the white race or why Third World people cannot take up Western culture, in which he counts Marxism. Instead, knowing full well that demographic tides are impossible for anybody to overturn, Buchanan calls for a "shoot-for-the- moon" strategy--an extremely dangerous one with all the main rules written by Hitler.

Buchanan argues a la Hitler that cosmopolitan elites have ruined the West with their decadent pornographic culture(2) that causes wimmin to enjoy life and not raise children in stable families. (Buchanan's argument is so out-of-date and old- fashioned, most people today won't see that it is from Hitler's book Mein Kampf and earlier reactionary works. In other words it may seem that what Buchanan is saying is even "novel.")

Buchanan recognizes full well that the way things are there will be no one to pay the social security pensions when all the whites of the current generation retire in the united $tates and Europe. (This might be one reason he made the observation that he could tolerate a 90% tax for some tax brackets.(3)) Despite the facts about the danger to pensions in the imperialist countries, Buchanan actually wants to halt immigration, not increase it! In other words, he sees things getting out of wack soon and he wants to make it worse.

According to Nixon and Reagan servant Patrick Buchanan, lifestyle politics and culture warfare have succeeded where Lenin failed in his direct assault on capitalist state power and organization. At the same time, Buchanan makes the case that demographic and cultural changes will end up being truly revolutionary.

So why not get on the sex-drugs-rock'n'roll bandwagon our readers may wonder. If Buchanan is afraid of the lifestyle revolution, then it cannot be all bad, one might think.

However, MIM starts from the premise that lifestyle is not politics. What Buchanan is talking about happens because of underlying economic and demographic factors. Preaching about them does not work.

The advance of technology is responsible for some changes. It is futile to preach against contraception such as the pill or the "morning- after-pill." In such matters the language of "choices" is bound to triumph.

It is also backward to lust for the days when a mother could be sure more than half her children would die before growing up just from the normal course of infectious disease and hunger. Trying to undo these changes will only produce insane social movements akin to Hitler's--doomed no matter how determined.

When wimmin started going to college en masse that created a basis for temporary sexual relations before career and family settled in. To oppose college because of that is also backward and hopeless. People want to be more educated.

While other people are having fun in society, it is also impossible to see any value in discriminating against gays. MIM has actively opposed discrimination against gays since before its foundation with its current name in 1984.

In these subjects, Buchanan would label us "cultural revolutionaries" lumped in with bourgeois reactionaries such as Hillary Clinton. To add insult to injury, MIM would not favor any censorship of the arts or media including pornography that Buchanan could come up with under capitalism. It would inevitably aim at the proletariat and oppressed nationalities while campaign contributors would obtain monopolies in pornography production, just as now the "oldest profession" is tied up with bribery of municipal governments everywhere.

Nonetheless, we oppose pornography under socialism and for party members we expect monogamy. We're also for banning reactionary artistic works, not just as bad influences on children but for all of society. The key is that this must be done without any eye toward profit or business competition whatsoever and of course that means socialism.

For MIM, humyn advancement is not a story of culture and passing it on through the generations. It is about economic and social organization first of all. If the mode of production is advanced, the culture built on top of it will be too. In fact, Buchanan's ideas are throwbacks to more economically and technologically backward days--not days when cloning and test-tube babies are already on the horizon. For that matter if Buchanan is so sure that Western culture is so superior, it will find a way to transmit itself to other peoples.

In the struggle toward socialism or to adjust to future changes, the labor aristocracy of the West has a choice. It can continue with its Pavlov-dog type response backing nationalist politicians like Buchanan because of past economic rewards for backing wars for plunder or super-exploitation of immigrants or the labor aristocracy can realize that the bad ole' days for wimmin are gone. There is no reason wimmin should be baby factories especially in rich countries and there is no shortage of population in projections up to 2050. What is important is not to produce more people but for the existing people to enter into harmonious relations.

Mousnonya responds to articles above:

Dear Mim:
I read your brilliant articles on white nationalism and demographics (http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/gender/demographics2004.html) and Russia (http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/countries/russia/nationalqrussia.html) and am still in awe of the mighty mighty MIM line.

Yes, it is true that the white race is in negative population growth due to material circumstances and that no amount of preaching could change that. MIM points out that the Third World population is also growing at a slower rate due to advances in technology and Wimmin's liberation. But though your article "White Nationalism on the Horizon" explains the demographic reason why white nationalists are screaming, it only implicitly outlines the reason why white nationalism may grow. More problematic, MIM has not yet stated whether it thinks the fascist nucleus can reach a critical mass to unleash a fascist chain reaction. In fact it cannot. Fascism will grow in the First World due to demographic pressures which it cannot understand or influence. But fascism will only grow to a certain extent due to the very material wealth which caused the demographic trends which motivate fascists and due to its incapacity to comprehend or influence the demographic facts which engendered it.

MIM has recognized that an increasing number of old people will need to be supported by a declining number of young people. That fact is because of declining birth rates and rising life expectancy. Thus, immigration to the First World is necessary and inevitable! Fascists have not recognized these basic facts or if so only partially: they hope, wrongly, that increased white population growth could offset Third World immigration. That is their reaction to a problem they only half understand.

We communists call an ideology reactionary when it is a reaction, and usually the wrong one, to trends the reactionaries do not understand. The white nationalist crackkkers see declining population but often ignore increased longevity. Even when they recognize both ends of the demographic trend (fewer young people, more older people) it [the white nationalist] does not see that those trends are the result of irreversible technological change or that no amount of propaganda and preaching can change the facts. The white nationalists are attempting to react to a problem they only partially understand -- and their reaction will not solve the problem.

Immigration is inevitable, even from the imperialist perspective: the social democratic welfare state was built on demographic presumptions of the 1940s -- briefer lives with many children: that means a large tax base for only a few retired persons. Those demographic assumptions no longer hold true -- and that explains a crisis of the welfare state throughout the First World. N[o] social democracy has a sufficient tax base to pay its promised pensions. Even with massive immigration there is still a major tax strain on the states' welfare resources (yet always enough to pay for cops and soldiers...). MIM is correct in saying that the pension of the labor aristocracy could be funded with immigration from the Third World.

White nationalism is on the horizon because of these demographic realities but also because of the growing gap between rich and poor and the decline in growth and chronic unemployment which followed the oil crisis of 1973. However, while getting a fat-cat labor aristocrat job is no longer as easy as it used to be, conditions are nowhere near so desperate as they were in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s when fascism in fact seized state power. The United $tates is not suffering from hyperinflation. There are no massive bank failures. There is just about no starvation in the U.S. empire and malnutrition is essentially confined to the internal semi-colonies. Thus, barring nuclear or environmental catastrophe the whites in Amerika (or elsewhere for that matter) who are truly dissatisfied under imperialism's current deal are and will remain a minority. This minority is however vocal and violent. They are not however desperate and unlike the global proletariat they do have something they could lose: imperialist superprofits.

MIM is correct to argue that the fascist enemy is less dangerous than the social democrat who paves the fascists' way and gives the fascists sugar coated bullets to kill. The wealth that social democracy proposes to distribute is all stolen from the Third World. The social democrat talks a good talk -- but in the end will take no steps to end capitalism, private property or imperialism, for those are the bases of the stolen wealth which the social democrat proposes to redistribute to the white First World. Once again MIM has told the truth and given the world a clear choice with writing that is far superior to anything the bourgeois press is spewing.

mim3@mim.org replies to mousnonya:

I believe mousnonya was the first in MIM circles to do agitation work on pensions as they related to the Third World.

Obviously it is not that MIM is so much for the welfare state of super-profit sharing, but we do not mind asking these troglodytes what is so great about Western civilization if it does not plan on keeping pensions for the elderly. In fact these fearful whites should have confidence that the whole world's majority wants to see the elderly cared for with pensions. That's true whether in China or the united $tates or Mexico. It's the Francoite minority like Buchanan openly for rule in minority interests that we cannot trust, simply because it does not know what it is doing and has no real solution.

MC5 did not exactly say social-democrats are more dangerous than fascists. Social-democrats are in some aspects. They can be much harder to see through. The implications of what they are doing are harder to see.