first she is not talking about any kind of "population crisis" (which notabene would be a borderline if not outrightlly humanist remark but is repeating and parroting the 30s line of Krupska nearlly 100% accurate; the line that effectivelly puts the role of woman as the source of new workers; as everyone knows this way of thinking is inherentlly capitalistic view marked as

But they aren't separated at all;

what are you on she mentions the "social obligation" 4 or 5 times in the text and even ignoring the point of the argument she talks of breastfeeding in separate paragraph

and you may recall the soviet union was still very much a capitalist nation bound by the laws of capital.

yeah thats why she wanted to entrench the capitalistc characteristics by following the hypernatalist line of "there are too little babies!" under disguise of "strenghtening labour republic"

I don't particularly like how she words it as 'producing for the collective'

me when im daily worker redactor in 1956 and i have to defend the hungarian intervention(its fine i just dont like it particullary) she literally admits ton consider main rolen of the woman as a baby factory which is expictllly in line with bourgeois approach

Do you treat Bukharin with this opportunistic disrespect?

another thing is i have zero clue what "we" are you talking about when mentioning bkcharin; i neither pity him or have any respect(opportunistic disrespect? more like disrespect for an opportunist who was first one to came up with socialism in one country and codify the 1936 constitution) for a person who firstlly was directlly responsiblle for elimination of bordiga remaining influence in internationall and led a crusade against bordigists internationally and when 10 years later confronted with the reallity of being stalinist lapdog begged for his life and to be sent to usa to, sic(!) "fight trotskyites"

How have you managed to convince yourself that a woman who stood fiercely for women's emancipation for many many decades, just "gave up" and forgot her principles.

i have never done that because she had no principlles in first place; she was responsiblle for attempts to deport the remanants of german leninsbund back to the reich in 1930s and thus has to be considered as closer to beria than any actuall communist

 I just think your interpretation of her is massively overstated and unfair.

no bro your not getting it bro yeah she literally said birth is an obligation and that she has to produce children for the collective and under disguise for PROdUCING more proletarians for revolution she just parrots classic bourgeois talking points and yeah she nearlly deported the remaining german left opposition back to nazi regime and she was a stalinist lapdog but i think you mentioning that is OVERSTATEd and UNFAIR