Socialism Perverts the Family

A quote from Oskari Juurikkala at, 24 January 2007

 “People will always have children,” assured Konrad Adenauer, the German Chancellor, in 1957. He was convinced that the future of the brave new pay-as-you-go social security system would not be undermined by demographic changes. Adenauer was as wrong as ever. […] [S]ocial security replaces children and the family as the main support in old age by literally socializing the traditional duties of the family. Why have children when the state will take care of you in your old age? […]

Every kind of socialism creates perverse incentives, and socialism directed to the family perverts the family.

Family Breakdown

Certainly socialism and economic sheltering have contributed to declining birthrates however there are also other factors at play which are probably more important.

 These other factors include:

1) The modern perceived inconvenience of children and the rising cost of living. Although socialism insulates against severe poverty raising a child has become more expensive for example in terms of owning a home etc.

2) A mass decrease in marriage due to divorce or de facto relationships. Often children whose parents were divorced grow up to become cynical of the family model and dont get married themselves.

3) A general restlessness and fear of commitment in modern relationships. Because of increased cheating and boredom in relationships they simply dont last as long.

4) Abortion and other post-pregnancy methods as an increasingly easy way out of an unwanted pregnancy

5) Women often want to establish careers before having children leaving childbirth too late to have more than 1 child

6) Not wanting to bring children into the world "because its a bad place now"

7) The general emassculation of young men who dont have the confidence to be fathers

8) An increasing number of young people cant find a partner they feel they can trust to have children with

 9) The rise of feminism which instructs women not to succumb to the role of a traditional mother

 10) The former cultural principle of "carrying on the family line" if of little importance now. The social pressure from parents and community to procreate has declined.

 11) The Christian ideal of being fruitful and populating the earth has died out in most western societies now

 12) The idea of "growing the nation" means very little to citizens now as the collective spirit community spirit is replaced with individualism and self-determination


In summary, the reasons are not only economic but also moral and cultural. I would say increased moral and cultural degradation in society is as or probably even more important than the economic factors.

Temporal vs. Transcendental Rationale

I am surprised that the Brussels Journal is agreeing with the quote's argument that one's decision to have children is largely dependent on economic or temporal incentives, namely the need for old age financial support. In the absence of reference to religious justifications for reproduction and the "traditional duties" of families, than can I presume that the Journal will be supportive of any and all means to increase the fertility rates of indigenous Europeans?


Arguably, the lion-pride polygamous model of reproduction used so effectively by Mormon polygamist communities in the United States and Canada would have the highest success if allowed on a mass scale, however, such a programme would be Darwinistic and would contravene the traditional nuclear family based upon Christian values. I have to ask, are values more important than numbers, because the aforementioned quote makes no clear distinction?