Paul Cockshott says you are not a socialist if you support legalisation of prostitution. However, Western leftists argue that legalisation of prostitution will improve working conditions for sex workers and that a socialist should support workers.
You know,what would improve the conditions of working people even more? Building a movement to abolish wage slavery and build socialism. You know what can't exist in socialism by definition? Prostitution. You know what liberals and neoliberals do to make the construction of socialism more difficult? Frame reinforcement and perpetuation of the capitalist system as liberation of some cultural identity or progressive action to split the Left and alienate the proletariat
Here's an example of women's empowerment via sex work
in a way, this is true. it would end the enormous material benefits that women get just for just being a moist hole. tell me you've never once known a woman who did absolutely fuck all except occasionally have sex with some desperate guy.>>2885895
Daily reminder that the majority of sex workers in the first world these days are self employed and some make so much damn money from horny rich guys they are practically petit bourg and that the majority of sex workers in the 3rd world are literal slaves many of whom are prepubescent
But yeah dude it's totally socialist cuz left=sex just like your boomer parents say
110% based. Pro sex-worker leftists are disgusting creeps who put the peddlers vice and decadence over the emancipation of women.
Hell if i got paid to have sex all day I would do it to.
Sure That doesn't mean fighting for decriminalization of it should be an issue for leftists
Actually a person who makes 5000 dollars a day because paypigs get off on her calling them faggots works just as hard as someone who just put in a 13 hour shift at burger king because neither of them own private property lol
Boy, someone got butthurt
No dude it's actually stupid to call Hitler a fascist because technically fascism and Nazism aren't the same thing
Western leftists are not socialists either they're welfare capitalists
How is increasing the commodification of sex and expanding markets socialist in any way?
Hi please stop feeding yourself and join my cult instead
The vast majority of people feed themselves by not doing sex work. Sex workers make up a tiny percentage of the general population and it's because they're people who are pretty enough to make money by monetizing their attractiveness. Out of that small percentage half are literally doing it as a choice. The percentage of 1st world sex workers who are "forced" into it is less than 50 percent of 1 percent
Just shut up
Percentages mean I get to tell you whether your job is legitimate, and also working at sad burger lord for less than subsistence wages instead of stripping or sucking dicks will somehow build socialism faster because I said so.
Something something shut up minority
I've heard people saying that capitalism turns the body into a commodity ipso facto during the work day, and this is true, that doesn't mean the most extreme form of it shouldn't be curtailed. Seeing self-declared socialists defending this shit is like as if they'd defend the right of Starbucks to evade taxes because "hurr durr the state is bourgeois under capitalism any way". All the theoretical arguments which are made pro-prostitution are just a cover for your IdPol.
Calling everybody a SWERF is IdPol in 90% of the cases.
Calling everybody a TERF is IdPol in 70% of the cases because there is actually a minority of feminist dykes who are just mysandrist and hate men even if they cut their junk off but the insult has extended to people like Blanchard (an advocate for trans rights) or Cockshott (who made the perfectly reasonable argument that it's retarded that transwomen talk about reproductive issues in the Labour Party), just like the word ☭TANKIE☭ has been extended to anybody who doesn't want Trump to kill Venezuelans.
In the end, just think about it like this: If there wasn't money involved nobody would do it. Whereas there are probably still movie critics when criticising a movie isn't profitable anymore. The extreme fringe cases of nymphomanicas getting some kind of psychological treatment out of fucking everybody aren't representative, obviously.
Calling something idpol is idpol in 33.3333% of cases, and when it's the most idpol when it's not
Lifestyle that reinforces capitism it makes me feel bad
Ya whatever, have fun organising with these people until they call you a fascist when you don't want to have genderbending orgies.
Please don't criticize my shitposts that aren't worth the bandwidth they cost to send, it makes me say retarded slurs constantly that are still somehow better than my original post I thought was insightful and provocative for some reason
That's like saying we should legalise child labour because there is a minority of innkeepers who can't run their business without kids helping them out.
Yes, socialists can and ought to tell people which jobs are legitimate. If you refuse an assessment you are at least forced to make such when you have to decide in socialism what things have use-value and which don't.
Legalizing child labor is the accelerationist approach to radicalization though.
Damn, I ran out of libs to trigger today. Good thing there are so many living rent free in my head. Hey, will you pretend to be the Hooker on Instagram that blocked me while I roleplay a cop real quick?
Why are you so upset man
there are people who call themselves socialist and defend the conditions of someone being so desperate that they resort to selling their bodies and dignity for a few bucks to make ends meet in a capitalist society. I agree on not criminalizing people who are in such a desperate state, but allowing them to be exploited to that extent and not instead helping them out of it is a pretty fucking trash way to go about it. THE ABSOLUTE STATE OF LIBERALS AND ANARKKKIDIES
I'm gay and I don't even particularly like women, try again.
That's why I called you a furfaggot. Doesn't mean you can't get some social cred by slimeing yourself in with the liberal idpol crowd.
Well given the neo-liberal track record, "legalization" might be taken literally as in codifying current sex worker conditions into law, because that reduces the legal risk for brothel proprietors etc.. The range of sex-worker conditions goes from slavery/human-trafficking, to 6 figure incomes. The liberals have idealist legal conception where they make rules now that they cannot enforce but hope they will be able to later on. Whether this will actually do anything for people in need is questionable. If you want to picture a neo-liberal sci-fi dystopia imagine prostitutes not only getting plastic surgery but also using advanced bio-tech, Where they basically become indebted to the providers of their "bio-tech-enhancements" having to whore them self's out or risk having body-parts being repossessed.
From a Socialist conception it's clear cut humans are not a commodity, so no to prostitution. Remember socialists want to abolish selling labor power on a market as well. Could you imagine the central-planer having a ministry of jiggles, with departments named after porhub-categories.
If you want to trade sexual favors for material bribes in a gift economy that is fine tho. We mainly hate monetization of human interactions. and prostitution translates to bankers becoming pimps.
there was a perfectly fine post in some other thread about sex work that argued that the term, by being used to refer to patreon thots and other camwhores (who are basically charging rent for artificially scarce material), voluntary "VIP" prostitutes, and those who do it to possess their means of sustenance (among others), was obfuscating the class and productive relations underneath which incidentally pushed a false consciousness (sex work solidarity!!) and framed all attempts to limit sex work as being a prude sadly i don't have it but hopefully someone else does
convince me that people camming is either bad or morally reprehensible
They exploit desperate males using an unfair advantage to leech excessive wealth from them.
Prostitution is immoral therefore un-socialist.
This is a really important distinction to make and I'm glad someone's brought it up. No one- including pro-sex work leftists- is pushing for "legalization" of it in the sense that it's legal in places like the Netherlands exactly because of this; what they're calling for is the simple decriminalization of both selling and buying sex (a la New Zealand) so that sex workers can work more independently, report any abuses/harm they face, and have an easier time getting social services they may need. It's also worth pointing out that under current anti-prostitution laws in America, even trafficking victims get arrested and charged with a crime.
All this moralizing of sex. Sex work is a service. The only reason you find it degrading is because moralization of sex and the perception of sex as a dominating or invasive act. Basically what I'm trying to say is because of spooks. Sex work can or can't be degrading. The point is that sex work already happens and keeping it illegal prevents sex workers from organizing and acquiring protections to keep it from being dangerous and/or degrading. I'm not a retarded liberal claiming it is somehow empowering, but it is a form of labor and it's absurd to claim otherwise. Honestly the most degrading thing about sex work is all the judgement coming from puritans pretending to be concerned.
Prostitution isn't empowering but it's in some cases preferable to not having work. (and some people actually want to do the job if the working conditions are ok) Making it safer is obviously preferable than letting black market pimps run roughshod over the workers. Cockshott's argument is terrible and the thesis statement is based on the wrong belief that illegal prostitution is more under control of the prostitutes and legal prostitution is more under control of capitalists (pimps), which is one of the stupidest things anybody has ever said about anything.
yeah nah fuck off
Well at least you out yourself as just a dipshit with hangups and no arguments.
OK, so between capitalism that allows prostitution and capitalism that doesn't give poor people that option and lets them just starve, which is preferable? Obviously we should abolish the conditions that push people to prostitution, but that's not happening overnight and in the meantime can we not reduce harm by allowing working conditions to be improved? I don't see people arguing that factory work has to be criminalized for being dangerous, instead trying to regulate it to be safer.
Only post I've seen here even making the point that "sex work" is most accurately a field, and that people occupy different class positions within it. Treating all sex work as equal based on icky naughty bits instead of doing a materialist analysis of it is embarrassingly liberal, and everyone doing that should go commit sudoku.
Only like two people itt used moralfag arguments against legalizing sex work everyone else said it reinforces capitalism. It's like fighting for affirmative action or "le no borders" shit it's just stupid culture wars shit that literally always gets co opted by porky it does nothing and is meaningless and is a waste of time
The pro legalization argument makes no fucking sense because in socialism there wouldn't be sex work. Inb4 "BUT THEY'RE GONNA STARVE" 1st world sex workers nowadays literally choose to do it because they think they're too good to work at McDonald's and are pretty enough to make a decent amount of money doing it. It's like when people say someone was forced to be a cop or join the military it's just nonsense used to justify doing something that alienates you from working class people
I didn't say doing anything short of abolishing capitalism was reactionary I said fighting for reforms that benefit a minority of the population under the capitalist system rather than trying to build a leftist movement of working class people whose ultimate goal is to abolish it is a waste of time
The legalization argument only applies to stop-gap reforms to capitalism, you retard. If there wouldn't be sex work in socialism then there's no reason to have laws against it in socialism.
Was it in the gender critical thread and was it me? The posts are probably gone by now, which is weird because I see my other shitposts in the thread which I'm pretty sure I made before my effortposts
I was mocking you because you can do both of those things or take a position on sex work without it getting in the way of being a socialist.
Ok well I accidentally saved the post so here goes:
This is only tangentially related to this thread but I'm starting to think that internet "Sex Workers", would wholeheartedly oppose any form of Socialism simply because of the barriers that there would be to selling nudes and such online, given a transition to a labour voucher based economy and the expectation for everyone who is able to work.
There are various mechanisms through which one could still be renumerated for such work, but it would be required to be democratically agreed upon in the abscence of free market mechanisms, and the lack of copyright protections that can be enforced either directly or on behalf of internet "Sex Workers" seems like it would more or less eliminate this type of work. I'd imagine that any kind of "Sex Work" that would exist would be deemed Socially Necessary. An example of something like this is perhaps sexual services rendered for the disabled, as some of these models already exist under Capitalism. The question remains around possible ethical questions with regards to such a service being renumerated however, it's plausible to assume there are those who may volunteer for such a service.
I'm not really opposed to these kinds of "Sex Work" since under Capitalism, as many individuals are forced to turn to alternative streams of income in order to subsist, and it's definitely better for an individual to do this than prostitute themselves, however I've noticed quite a few worrying trends within this community that fundamentally obscure inter & intraclass relations and cause problems with actually identifying the nature of different kinds of "Sex Work", and this is without even bringing into it the Bourgeois interests at play who wish to completely Marketize & Proletarianize "Sex Work".
It is commonly understood that the reason why Men, Women, Non-conforming people enter into "Sex Work" to begin with is wholly financially motivated (leaving aside those who are directly forced into it), because there simply isn't any kind of Wage Labour that can allow them to live as well, or even in conjunction with some kind of Wage Labour. In this sense it is economic coercion in the same way that generalized Wage Labour is under Capitalism, and it's apparent that the vast majority of these people would leave "Sex Work" if they were presented with a viable alternative. This is at least true for the majority of Prostitutes, but I'm not entirely sure it's true for Camgirls or "Models", and it seems as though a lot of them have entirely swallowed Bourgeois Ideology, using Neoliberal talking points in terms of advocacy and coating it all in a veneer of liberation from Patriarchy and other such things.
One of my theoretical problems with "Sex Work" is that it's definition is incredibly opaque and encompasses such a wide range of activities that if subjected to a Marxist analysis, would render the term almost obsolete. There is a clear, concrete difference between various different kinds of "Sex Work" within a Materialist framework and this seems to equivocate much in the same way that calling a Factory Floor Worker and a Manager the same because they work within the same industry. I often see a strata of "Sex Work" advocates online perform activism (not sure Social Media posts are this but whatever) whereby they talk about regulation and legalization and platforms allowing them to work but in all of their discourse, they profess solidarity with other kinds of sex workers whilst only ever narrowly talking about their own interests without taking into account how it would affect their supposed allies, only invoking them as a defense of themselves. In this sense, it seems as though this is almost a "Labour Aristocracy" utilizing stolen valour in much the same way that the Bourgeois elements of the industry play off the sympathy for "Sex Work", and I'd imagine this is learned from such elements, and that these individual producers implicitly ally themselves with large private interests in this way. For example, a lot of their advocacy tends ot be around arguing for Social Media platforms such as Instagram to allow them to advertise on their sites, but often through the "Sex Work" platforms that they themselves use, which is essentially lobbying one Firm on behalf of another. This itself is just rational in their minds but the fact that they have an entitlement towards access to a privately owned platform on one hand, but on the other hand will viciously defend their intellectual property rights puts them in a position that suspiciously seems like rent-seeking, without even bringing up the fact that digitally produced content has almost zero SNLT nor raw materials and can be infinitely reproduced at no cost. In this sense all "Sex Work" advocates are doing is attempting to create a space whereby they can charge rents for their intellectual property, implicitly differing their work from other kinds of "Sex Work" whilst sheathing it in rhetoric about how "Sex Work" is noble, or liberatory, i.e attempting to neoliberalize a sector of the economy by using the language of Social Justice. This muddying of the waters it also very ironic when you consider how much SWERFs are lambasted because the very defense of "Sex Work is work" echoing the sentiment that all Wage Labour is exploitation & coercive, whilst attempting to create economic spaces which privilege it and seperating it from general work actually implicitly accedes to the SWERF framework they proclaim to criticize.
In a sense, all of these things can have comparisons drawn to things like Freelance Artists or any other kind of individual artisinal production in terms of how they operate but I think that there is something very sinister about a Society that forces so many people into "Sex Work" with the promises of joining an exclusive Labour Aristocracy, invokes all kinds of discourse about "Workers rights" and yet stays completely silent about this within the other parts of the Economy. I see so many people who are in this line of work who also have regular jobs and they never utter anything in relation to the exploitation they suffer at say, their Bartending job but are quick to do the legwork for the platform companies that essentially provide marketplaces with the promise of freedom from the drudgery of wage labour. It creates a false consciousness to the point where if you asked these people if they would still perform this work under Socialism, with the knowledge they couldn't be paid for it, their affinity for Socialism would very quickly evaporate.
This entire issue is very complicated, but from my perspective it seems as though there needs to be a complex Marxist analysis of the entire industry of "Sex Work" which isn't covered by the traditional viewpoint upon it, and that we must cut through these spectres to bring a Materialist Class analysis to the problem, and show these people the true nature of things so that there can be actual movements towards reducing the exploitation of workers within at least this field. Just a few incoherent thoughts.
I know bitch so why defend it under capitalism? Should we shill for capitalist reparations too because under socialism blacks would be equal to whites on a social level and thus would be given a true form of reparations?
I love this recent trend on this board of "I'm not a reformist I just think defending reformist ideas and tactics and participating in the culture war is how you build socialism hurrr remember when Marx and Engels said the way to build socialism is by letting everyone just like do their own thing man xD"
Not if they aren't universalist. Anything that gives particular "rights" to a formally persecuted group is almost always 1)a shitty version of the promised reform that doesn't actually help anyone but some people in the private sector who fund it for good PR 2)since it is better than it not existing people take it and it's literally just giving heroin to a cancer patient. Meanwhile its existence is used by porky to stir up a bunch of propaganda against anyone who uses it and further divides the working class while also creating the conditions for its inevitable repeal
As far as i understand it, camming is primarily performed by self-employed producers. They (the camwhores) are not exploiting people in the Marxist sense of the word, they make/stream content, and coerce horny idiots into paying for it. They're not extracting any surplus value from anyone because only they are producing. Disregarding the fact that this seems to be assuming that both camwhores and people who masturbate to them are competing in the same market.. Is the advantage of triathletes with excellent natural physical capabilities over others unfair? Is the advantage of lions over deer unfair? If the answer is yes, then sure, but any claims regarding the 'fairness' of nature seem pointless considering nature literally just is and can't talk to you about what should or shouldn't be. You being ugly compared to someone else being pretty can't be called unfair in any meaningful sense considering neither of you can choose or change those conditions without significant physical harm (yet), only work in the sciences towards a possible emancipation from differences in beauty.
More like they'd demand sex work to be reimbursed with labor vouchers.
Socially necessary applies to any "need" in society including wants that people have. A present day socialist society would easily have abundance that would allow average people to have luxuries on top of basic needs being met. There are a lot of people who would engage in "sex work" voluntarily because it's an enjoyable use of their time and you can get good at it. There are also people who volunteer to build houses and shit for similar reasons.
You still have to explain why socialism wouldn't allow compensation for them. You talk about it like it's just assumed. Why does a masseuse get a labor voucher for rubbing your muscles until they're relaxed but a prostitute doesn't get a labor voucher for rubbing your genitals until you orgasm? Why does a filmmaker get a labor voucher for making a film but a camwhore specifically doesn't get a labor voucher for making a film specifically about sexual activity?
If you think the communist movement is going anywhere anytime soon without recruiting, or that we can recruit people without doing anything that draws attention, you're a LARPer. I guess we should just dismiss those socialists who fought to get a 40 hour work week too. Pffff, that was just wasted effort!
Sounds a lot like the old "if you give the homeless guy money he'll just waste it on drugs" conservative bullshit. Better not do anything to improve people's lives here and now, no. You just have to wait for the spontaneous universal uprising for anything to get done! Jesus, at least a fed gets paid to subvert action and organizing. You're doing it for free.
Lol "If you don't support my impotent social Democratic org you're basically a mitt Romney supporter' is one I haven't seen my yet my dude nice. Remember when the black Panthers got people to join their org by telling them to go through the state and participate in electoralism instead of just feeding and clothing and giving medicine directly to needy people in the community while simultaneously using the opportunity to educate them?
Also good job missing my point about universality. The 40 hour work week is for everyone it doesn't have the appearance of priveliging anybody which is why despite it being a reform it was worth fighting for becausecby fighting for it you force porky to show their true colors which leads to the working class getting even more radical
Read through the blog post, pretty much agree with most of it but this part to me seems to stand out as bullshit:
A scam artist is technically not exploiting in the marxist sense either, they are still anti-social and abusing others, you with liberal "muh free choice" can go and kill yourself. ebin :DDDDDDDDDDD
Yeah, it makes me extremely suspicious when the language of self-declared experts on a topic is more fuzzy than how non-exerts talk about it. What a camgirl does is far less risky than being a prostitute out in the streets, which is why it makes sense to use the word camgirl instead of putting very different activities into the more nebulous category sex worker – which even includes managers of prostitutes! Kat Banyard: "Why is a pimp helping to shape Amnesty’s sex trade policy?" theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/22/pimp-amnesty-prostitution-policy-sex-trade-decriminalise-brothel-keepers
The black panthers lost. You're going to change how the government functions by meeting people's needs directly through a parallel economy, so that example doesn't apply here.
That was replying specifically to a point about how reform in general is a waste of time. Nobody has to adhere to the standard that each thing they say has to address every point other people make. You're being an obtuse fuckstain. As for specific people's needs, not everybody is needy for food and clothing, not everybody is homeless so by your logic it would follow we shouldn't help them either.
So did socdems. The differences is that if the Panthers and the groups they were coaliitioned with at the time had won the world would look very different whereas when reformists win things stay the same and then they lose anyway and all of their reforms are obliterated. It's often a losing battle either way the difference is that if one does succeed it actually has the power to legitimately build a new society where the other loses even if it wins
Sure, but far more are more needy more of the time for those things than for having their easy job they choose to do because it makes then 10 times the amount of money for 1/10th the time and energy as actually working somewhere like a fast food restaraunts or some gig economy nightmare like being an uber driver
I'm not a socdem. My whole point is you can include reforms as part of a more radical platform so comparing that argument directly to something that failed (while also strawmanning my argument as something that failed) isn't addressing what I'm saying. You're setting up a false dichotomy.
There's no reforms to be made for camwhores. That's got nothing to do with the argument here. Camwhoring is legal, and not prostitution in the legal sense. Legalizing or decriminalizing prostitution is for the people who are pushed into that line of work out of desperation, to allow them to get legal protections, recourse against abuses by employers, the possibility of organizing as a co-op, of forming unions, etc. Camwhores would be unaffected by legalized prostitution, unless lifting the taboo made camwhoring less competitive.
You do realise that the total number of Labour Vouchers that exist in an economy is equal to the total number of Labour hours that exists in the economy as a representation of ones entitlement to the Social Product as a whole correct? This makes unproductive Labour part of a political question because it's harder to allocate for. In lower stage Communism, all unproductive labour would be required to be socially necessary, and therefore be renumerated according to whether a political body believes it should be. They could very well demand that sex work be reimbursed with Labour Vouchers but do they take precedence over the thousands of other, more essential roles? Who would accede to this framework? At least with other Unproductive Socially Necessary roles like Teaching, there is a long process of accreditation & training, whereas with Sex Work it seems as though it's an afterthought. Why would we require Sex Workers outside of specialized fields if Society is transformed to such a point that the coercion of wage labour no longer exists? Do we have quotas for Sex Workers in the same way that we have quotas for Teachers? Who are the people who get to perform Sex work and why are they entitled to the social product in a scenario of abundance over say, lowering the workweek further to increase employment in productive sectors and allowing everyone to benefit, or allowing those who cannot work more of the Social product? Again, these are all political questions, this is my point. I noted in my post that I'm not theoretically opposed to Sex Work on some kind of moral grounds, please don't imply that I am.
Agreed. Where did I state otherwise?
This shall increasingly be the case yes, although the political questions regarding the unequal development of the third world & the climate come into play here. I don't think anyone wants barracks communism but if I am expected to receive less from the productivity gains of society so that we can uplift those who aren't as fortunate as I then I'm perfectly fine with this and I say this as a member of the working class who lived well below the poverty line for most of my adult life. This, I'll admit, is where my ethical considerations come in. For me it's about priorities.
We're in agreement here. Under Lower Stage Communism there is actually nothing that prevents 2 or more individuals coming to some kind of Voluntary arrangement to exchange gifts or services with each other, and this free association of labour is a positive development. Where it gets messy however though, is that Labour Vouchers do not function as money; they cannot be circulated or exchanged, and to allow them to do so within this manner would restablish the law of value as it exists under Capitalism. You could redeem your labour vouchers for part of the Social Product and then gift it to someone in exchange for something else, but you cannot transfer or create labour vouchers for that individual yourself. I would hope you had read CotGP.
As I stated earlier, it's a political question. Is taking pictures of yourself and uploading them to the internet something that is worth allocating Social Product towards? My entire argument was about the fact that in the abscence of Property Rights, this strata of "Sex Workers" would no longer wish to perform this task as work because a Socialist Society doesn't provide them with Intellectual Property rights to charge rents for things with almost 0 SNLT and near infinite reproductive potential. It seems as if you are too used to arguing with SWERFs. This dangerously approaches mudpie territory.
Again, I'm not opposed to this in theory, but it depends on how we arrange distributive mechanisms. An accredited sex worker would be very similar to a masseuse insofar as they would likely spend a long time going through some kind of training, for which they would be renumerated, and then upon completion, recieve the same amount of Labour Vouchers as anyone else for their work. This is qualitatively different from the vast majority of the kinds of sex work that exist under Capitalism today. With regards to the Arts, I suggest you look into how film funding already works in places like Canada and how the USSR funded the arts. There is a very simple grant system that any organization could apply for the necessary equipment for, but again, this is a political question. There are alternative models such as the ability for limited exchange to work in the same way that allocation fo labour vouchers are taxed for universal public services, which functions similarly to patreon, but again, this comes with similar problems insofar as you would need safeguards to prevent accumulation and other capitalist phenomenon. For example, you can very easily see how 2 individual producers could be allocated at incredibly different rates for their work simply because one is more popular than another; a potential solution to this would be to collectively pool the allocated vouchers in order to provide all of the producers with Labour Vouchers in accordance with their work. However more problems remain, how do we account for how much Labour they have actually performed? Can you measure Art by SNLT? Who decides who is "allowed" to be an Artist without any kind of accreditation system or parallel mechanisms? It seems as though ones choice to be an Artist would have to be out of Leisure time for the vast majority of people, but again, ultimately this is all political.
All that aside why not fight for, oh I don't know, a jobs guarantee, rather than transferring the current legalization of pot model onto prostitution?
no, it's degenerate and self-serving, unless the whores are willing to let themselves be fucked for free and don't have the capacity of refusing any and all kinds of customers that ever request their services.
found the thot
thats one hell of a post
Not sex workers I've seen. Most of them are so ugly you wouldn't want to fuck them. Afew manage to look at and have ok prices.
The only ugly sex workers i've ever fucked is your mother
Idk if you're making fun of me or not fam, it was basically just me musing about something I had noticed in an attempt to better understand this debate which is becoming a reignited topic on the left, hotter by the day. It got ignored in the Gender Crit thread.
Do we need a thread like this every few days?
Yes they are boring but they get reddit newfags to leave
the only good post in this dumb thread
The legalization of prostitution is the expansion of capitalist markets
People who want to do sex work or be serviced by sex workers. A lot of people are fine with the concept of sex as a job and just don't like the conditions it happens in (mostly because it's prohibited). There is plenty of unproductive work with little to no training, like janitorial work. Not an argument. What are you arguing for then? That there are logistical questions to be answered? Because that applies to compensation for any kind of work. The reason the questions are harder for prostitution is because it's operating illegally so the payment systems under capitalism haven't developed the same way and there hasn't been a history we can readily draw from like factory work for instance.
Why wouldn't it be? It might be minimal, but if people value this (i.e. it meets some need), then it is creating value. Just because advertising and whatnot might inflate the apparent value in capitalism doesn't mean that there's no value involved here. With cybernetic socialism there's no reason to think you couldn't allocate someone tiny amounts for posting things on social media, given the importance the activity has to culture and communication.
Here's the argument that actually matters: And that's a result of the conditions surrounding the practice of prostitution or sex work, which has a long and varied history that demonstrates it can take other forms. This fact torpedoes the rest of the anti-sex work argument going on here, which assumes the same form of sex work as exists under the present conditions continuing under different conditions, as if "make sex work legal" is about legalizing the pimp-based model on black markets.
Watch the Working Class History episode on the strip club co-op. They did this within capitalism with cash. You would want to keep track of who is more popular, though, since it would help you refine what you're producing to be more effective. This kind of competition gets associated with markets but it still functions to show what people are demanding even in a system where everything is free. The specifics aren't what's important here. Capitalism has the ingenuity to figure out a workable way to calculate value for all kinds of things. People could figure out what's reasonable in socialism too.
Because nobody is arguing "instead of legalizing prostitution, let's create a jobs guarantee," they're arguing "keep prostitution illegal!" and as described above some people would choose sex work. You could have both a jobs guarantee and legal prostitution, but anti-sex-work gang would still argue to make/keep prostitution illegal.