Re: new paradigm in pop policy (fwd)

I am DECLARING to wsn last time that whoever confuses Marxism with the
Catholic Church and unfairly attack people on the logic of quilt by
association is making the exact argument of the Church.    
  
How many times have I declared here that we should be sceptical of BOTH
the pro-population advocacy groups and those in charge of population
control, such as the capitalist state? They are the sides of the same
coin. Eugenics promoters in the 30s were not anti-religion per se. They
were able to mobilize support from white religious Catholics and
Protestants; fascists did the same in Europe too. One thing is clear. We,
Marxists, Marxist feminists, do *not* need to take a position on one of
these sides, except that we have to be protective of women's rights' to
have access to birth control. If the ultimate purpose of population
control is to introduce free market capitalism to the third world as a
means of establishing capitalist hegemony (such as military dictatorships
implementing population policies under the guidance of western governments
the US, Ford and Rockefeller), I think we seriously need to understand
what is that we are taking at face value. This not women's rights, when
maternal fertility is 25 times higher in Morroco than in Europe,! Pro and
anti population control is a false, liberal dichotomy. Neither catholic
religion nor ITS ALLY, the US, give a damn about women's rights in the
third world. Religion is already a natural ally of the ideological
hegemony,  NEW RIGHT, after the 80s.  They sleep in the same bed.

did you also look at the post I sent to the list yesterday on United Arab
Emirates? You may think from a vulgar modernization perspective that
because of their religion (Islam) they are against population control. NO.
They will go for it as long as the US pushes, and makes a it condionality
for investing there, and buying and negotiating oil. It is all power
politics. The idea is to control women by containing or modernizing
partriachy. Export all the technology to pre-screen fetus before delivery,
but maintain inter-marriage!!...

i am going. I have to concentrate on my studies, please avoid further
replies...


Mine


>Mary, Mine & List-

>Obviously population control should be voluntary, both on ethical
>grounds,
>and because it will be more effective.

>But I want to challenge what I see as faulty logic -- just because
>population control is being pushed by evil forces, it does not follow
>that
>unrestricted population growth is good!

>It seems an obvious irony to me that some on the left apparently side
>with
>the Catholic Church, the Mormon Church and other well-known progressive
>forces on this issue.

>Now I can see the emotions kicking in and overriding logic.  Be very
>clear, I'm not saying you share their ideology, but you wind up
>advocating the same dangerous position -- unlimited population growth.
>After all, the only problem is capitalism, not population.  (It would be
>refreshing if you could make the same distinction that I'm making between
>advocating a position and the ideology behind it.)

>RH