The production of people is, contrary to the assumption that very few people are somehow involved, subject to control countless bodies and a highly competitive field. In particular, it is a question of who should and may testify to which constitution, when and how many descendants, and who is not.
If we consider the goal of the State with regard to the witnessing of people, we find that it is particularly concerned with having productive German citizens bred according to the ableist norm, whom it gets so indoctrinated with the help of the school system that they fulfill the tasks that are vital to the preservation of the State. So while attempts are being made to persuade people with “middle and secure income in stable circumstances” to have children – with the help of child benefit and stove bonuses and the like. If possible, everyone else should be prevented from doing so. While abortions are still a criminal offense forced sterilization is still common practice for people with intellectual disabilities – and doctors are happy to advise, thanks to better prenatal diagnostics, more and more frequently to abort fetuses with disabilities. In the GDR, pregnant “contract workers” were even given the choice of either having an abortion or leaving the country. Until a few years ago, trans people had to be sterilized before they could change their civilized status. Many people report how doctors, counselors, or their environment urge them to terminate a pregnancy because they do not correspond to the image of the “perfect parent.” Even Fundis doesn’t seem to be so concerned with the “soul” of the individual fetus, when they complain that “the European people” are dying out. The German State also expresses dismay that “the Germans” are having too few children. Good German, white, non-disabled children who are not reproduced as heavily as the post-Nazi German society, together with its most fundamentalist Christians, would like. The State has to maintain itself and it can do that best if it organizes the production of the offspring. Incidentally, well beyond pregnancy, through the isolation of people with the help of the promotion of the structure of the heterosexual blood-related nuclear family and the provision of the upbringing by the school.
Regardless of how many small family structures are useful to the State, it is also otherwise creepy how much this family image still prevails as the only ideal. You have probably already heard that people who have a child are unlucky and, in case of doubt, have to take care of it alone because they had the baby in their womb and can therefore be clearly identified as a participant in the procreation process, in contrast to the person who would have contributed the sperm cell. One baby looks like another. As soon as someone has squeezed the baby out of itself, it cannot be assigned to this person any more than to the natural parent. Nevertheless, such a “natural bond” is invented between the pregnant woman and the born child, which the pregnant person is simply not supposed to have. As a result, adopted and foster children always suffer from the stigma of having been abandoned by their blood relatives, especially by “their mother.” This also means that the pregnant women are “naturally” responsible for their brood, while everyone else – and I mean here everyone else, not just the pregnant person, but also everyone else around the pregnant person – says “We want nothing to do with this.”
As early as the 1930’s, the anarchist Mujeres Libres, the free women, a movement that had over 30,000 members at its peak, grappled with new family models. They organized cooking and childcare collectively, in the form of communal kitchens and kindergartens. A few years earlier, the Anarchist-Syndicalist Women’s Association formed “mother settlements” in which single women came together or propagated “Einküchehäuser,” also a form of collective organization of the kitchen. However, we should not confuse these forms of organization with current childcare centers and company canteens. In neoliberalism there are many attempts at appropriating originally revolutionary ideas of autonomy, social organization, and liberation. Captured by capitalist logic, they become more subtle mechanisms of exploitation that are only more difficult to combat. The aim of establishing all-day childcare is here to reclaim labor, not to implement a non-dominant family model.
But why do we need a family model free of domination? A radical feminism that questions the patriarchy will come to the conclusion that not only the rule of fathers is somehow shitty, but that actually al institutions exercising rule are to be rejected. Because whoever begins to question the authority of one’s own father will soon also come to question God the Father, and, of course, the highest of all fathers, the father of the State. Once you start, you can’t get out of it, so that it suddenly becomes clear that only a non-domineering togetherness is feminist, because all power institutions are assistants of the patriarchy.
What does a domination-free family model look like then? Quite differently, depending on the needs of the people involved in the family. One thing is clear, however: who shares which genes with whom is completely unimportant, no person is “naturally” responsible for any tasks, and the amount of people who feel responsible for the young people can be very different. In addition, collective solutions based on solidarity can be built up from spontaneous voluntary get-togethers that deal with, redistribute, and manage tasks such as cooking, cleaning, and caring for young people. However, these must not arise out of capitalist, State, or patriarchal logic, but exclusively out of the spirit of the abolition of all rule. And, of course, the way people grow up has to be dealt with differently. Instead of young people being educated, that is, they are forced to adapt to externally defined ideals and to learn certain contents, they are accompanied and supported in growing up and in voluntary learning.
However, it will not be possible for so long to find serious, domineering ways of dealing with people who have just come into this world, such as politics, and, in this case especially, “population politics.” So if the production of new people and the handling of them is subject to some goal, such as maintaining a “healthy people of good citizens,” or a new generation of Christians or proletarians, or to beget the generation, which will save the Earth from destruction, there will always be oppression of humans and control of human reproduction. Since the goal of every State is to rule its citizens and therefore also the goal of every State to control the reproduction of its citizens, only the smashing of the State can be the solution in order to find a truly sovereign coexistence that only leaves dealing with pregnancy and one’s own body to those who are directly affected. Such a break-up cannot take place by playing along according to the rules of the State, not by “making politics.” Because “making politics” is always a form of exercising power over the heads of affected people, it is always the acceptance of the rules of the game that first create the structures that make it possible to suppress people in their reproductive freedoms. With this in mind, I would like to call for people to finally stop “making politics” and to fight the oppressive structures of the society radically and uncompromisingly, and to begin a non-dominant coexistence in the here and now. Long live anarchy!
Dated May 10, 2019. Translated 2021 by Robin. Retrieved from the online site.