Is legalisation of prostitution socialist?

Colton Diaz
Colton Diaz

Paul Cockshott says women's "empowerment" in prostitution is a "neoliberal narrative"

facebook.com/pcockshott/posts/10219356457325863

paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2017/12/01/socialists-can-never-support-prostitution/

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.

Attached: 9958820.jpg (483.66 KB, 3000x2000)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=7iPIn_Xmhec
youtube.com/watch?v=rHhypX2Qrds
youtube.com/watch?v=WNoRXOyPBjA
youtube.com/watch?v=XA3xxNpoXuw
youtube.com/watch?v=1rpaaYmhHyk
youtube.com/watch?v=vNeLhFgasew
paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2017/08/26/the-desire-for-a-convergence-of-heterosexuality/
theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/22/pimp-amnesty-prostitution-policy-sex-trade-decriminalise-brothel-keepers
isj.org.uk/the-sex-work-debate/
cpim.org/content/partys-perspective-womens-issues-and-tasks-dec-2005
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_the_Soviet_Union
cdc.gov/marijuana/data-statistics.htm

Justin Foster
Justin Foster

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

Luke Russell
Luke Russell

Here's an example of women's empowerment via sex work

Attached: 1557364011.webm (4 MB, 554x416)

Joshua White
Joshua White

women's "empowerment" in prostitution is a "neoliberal narrative"
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
women's "empowerment" in prostitution is a "neoliberal narrative"

Dylan Butler
Dylan Butler

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

Jayden Peterson
Jayden Peterson

110% based. Pro sex-worker leftists are disgusting creeps who put the peddlers vice and decadence over the emancipation of women.

Zachary Ward
Zachary Ward

Hell if i got paid to have sex all day I would do it to.

David Carter
David Carter

Sure
That doesn't mean fighting for decriminalization of it should be an issue for leftists

Blake Kelly
Blake Kelly

Abolishing profit
prostitution
pick 1

Isaac Long
Isaac Long

Nu Jason "Maoist Rebel" Unruhe video, fuckers

Child Prostitution America's Hidden Shame
youtube.com/watch?v=7iPIn_Xmhec

He also debunks liberal myths about prostitution in the video

Attached: maoistrebelnews.jpg (16.1 KB, 380x380)

Juan Robinson
Juan Robinson

Good post

Chase Adams
Chase Adams

Liberating.
Empowering
Strengthening.
Inspiring.

The modern woman!

Christopher Cook
Christopher Cook

youtube.com/watch?v=rHhypX2Qrds

Caleb Collins
Caleb Collins

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

Brayden Ward
Brayden Ward

Boy, someone got butthurt

Dominic Gonzalez
Dominic Gonzalez

No dude it's actually stupid to call Hitler a fascist because technically fascism and Nazism aren't the same thing

Mason Nguyen
Mason Nguyen

Western leftists are not socialists either they're welfare capitalists

How is increasing the commodification of sex and expanding markets socialist in any way?

Dylan Cook
Dylan Cook

This.

Attached: nico98789.jpg (34.3 KB, 184x184)

Easton Turner
Easton Turner

Hi please stop feeding yourself and join my cult instead

Elijah Johnson
Elijah Johnson

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

Owen Wright
Owen Wright

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

Cameron Harris
Cameron Harris

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.

Jose Barnes
Jose Barnes

Calling something idpol is idpol in 33.3333% of cases, and when it's the most idpol when it's not

Carter Turner
Carter Turner

please don't criticize my l
Lifestyle that reinforces capitism it makes me feel bad

Lol just shut up faggot

Jack Young
Jack Young

Anarkiddie tasting some of its own medicine

Attached: Screenshot-20190509-073136-YouTube.jpg (212.77 KB, 1078x994)
Attached: Screenshot-20190509-073153-YouTube.jpg (144.33 KB, 1080x605)
Attached: Screenshot-20190509-073212-YouTube.jpg (61.74 KB, 1080x349)
Attached: Screenshot-20190509-073224-YouTube.jpg (119.71 KB, 1076x441)

Jonathan Walker
Jonathan Walker

Ya whatever, have fun organising with these people until they call you a fascist when you don't want to have genderbending orgies.

David Roberts
David Roberts

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

Adrian Diaz
Adrian Diaz

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.

Attached: IMG-20190223-131518.jpg (34.67 KB, 607x452)

Jeremiah Flores
Jeremiah Flores

retarded slurs
retard
Lol you're such a fucking stupid faggot

John Myers
John Myers

Would you look at that! My posting quality went up again! If you keep replying to me, maybe the board might improve?

Brody Thompson
Brody Thompson

Keeo,going it's hilarious

Attached: 8uj67fvc6qd11.jpg (55.31 KB, 700x667)

Anthony Kelly
Anthony Kelly

Legalizing child labor is the accelerationist approach to radicalization though.

Lucas Sanchez
Lucas Sanchez

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?

Hudson Jenkins
Hudson Jenkins

Why are you so upset man

Ayden Parker
Ayden Parker

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

Attached: ja-this-is-going-in-my-capitalist-compilation.jpg (34.92 KB, 500x404)

John Richardson
John Richardson

If sex work is so easy, why aren't first-worlder leftists whoring themselves out to fund the revolution?

Angel Moore
Angel Moore

This. Those first world VIP escorts are pulling, what, 10k a day?

Jacob King
Jacob King

10k / day
i mean, maybe the top 1% of hoors…
more average is probably around 300-500 / day, which is what approx what a top-10% office worker makes.

but you also have to consider a hooker's peak earning years are *over* by age 35, max.

Anthony Wood
Anthony Wood

what are you retarded? marx clearly said communism will disband the community of women, read the fucking book before posting retarded fucking threads you god damn incel cuck faggot

Hudson Edwards
Hudson Edwards

If there is no prostitution how will I ever have sex?

Owen Jones
Owen Jones

sex workers are oppr-

Attached: serveimage.jpg (130.47 KB, 1280x720)
Attached: sociopath.mp4 (2.22 MB, 576x720)

Xavier Murphy
Xavier Murphy

Do you guys have any evidence that this is anything more than a small number of sex celebrities and is instead a norm?

All it looks like so far is thinly veiled incel anger.

Ethan Peterson
Ethan Peterson

incels
existing
Pick one.
youtube.com/watch?v=WNoRXOyPBjA
youtube.com/watch?v=XA3xxNpoXuw
youtube.com/watch?v=1rpaaYmhHyk
youtube.com/watch?v=vNeLhFgasew

Benjamin Allen
Benjamin Allen

Again, is this anything more than "ree thots"?

Brayden Long
Brayden Long

being sexy and working doesn't make you a sex worker. you sound like an incel.

Hudson Anderson
Hudson Anderson

Most prostitute customers are married you filthy furfaggot.

Attached: male-feminist-stonetoss.jpg (114.71 KB, 750x742)

Lucas Morris
Lucas Morris

getting free money for masturbating yourself on cam is not being a sexworker
found the camwhore

Nicholas Rodriguez
Nicholas Rodriguez

I think most people, when they hear sex workers, think about the gypsy prostitutes that work near railway stations, parks and bridges and not egirls masturbating online.

Ian Parker
Ian Parker

because im a fat ethnic nerd not a hot young athletic bodied woman or guy for that matter

Gavin Parker
Gavin Parker

ree thots

Lucas Jackson
Lucas Jackson

m'lady

Attached: fedorahitler.jpg (4.72 KB, 241x209)

Leo Russell
Leo Russell

I'm gay and I don't even particularly like women, try again.

Julian White
Julian White

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.

Camden Cox
Camden Cox

ree thots

John Martin
John Martin

However, Western leftists argue that legalisation of prostitution will improve working conditions for sex workers and that a socialist should support workers.

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.

Jacob Long
Jacob Long

No

Attached: f9256c77d0d3c95225ac45b7d6cde0c5948e55f6496c6b314abf3212ad3230a3.jpg (168.85 KB, 857x960)

Logan Moore
Logan Moore

Is legalisation of prostitution socialist?
No.

Parker Barnes
Parker Barnes

This is just a leading question.
The totality and closure of language and politics that feminism can seek wider representation for a masculine attribute and to mask its lack, the unmediated cathexis of homosexual desire, produce new forms of acknowledged fragmentation might facilitate coalitional action precisely because they constitute the legitimacy of the feminine could never be recovered or known.
t. cockshott

Cameron Cruz
Cameron Cruz

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

Carson Adams
Carson Adams

They exploit desperate males using an unfair advantage to leech excessive wealth from them.

Anthony Brooks
Anthony Brooks

Prostitution is immoral therefore un-socialist.

Tyler Perry
Tyler Perry

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

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.

Jeremiah Morales
Jeremiah Morales

morality
socialism

Attached: spook.jpg (42.57 KB, 613x771)

Kayden Miller
Kayden Miller

The anarcho furfag sex pest strikes again

Attached: images-(2).jpeg (10.27 KB, 259x194)

Carter Robinson
Carter Robinson

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.

Jack Brown
Jack Brown

Is [vague thing that could be implemented in all sorts of possible ways] socialist?
800 replies
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.

if you do anything short of abolishing capitalism you're a reactionary
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.

Attached: 1388653211404.jpg (203.25 KB, 1000x1000)

Thomas Anderson
Thomas Anderson

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

Angel Flores
Angel Flores

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

Lincoln Jones
Lincoln Jones

The pro legalization argument makes no fucking sense because in socialism there wouldn't be sex work
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.

Jayden Allen
Jayden Allen

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

Bentley Hall
Bentley Hall

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.

Ethan Gonzalez
Ethan Gonzalez

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.

Jonathan Perez
Jonathan Perez

CONT.

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.

Carter Collins
Carter Collins

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"

Cooper Ross
Cooper Ross

you can fight for reforms without it getting in the way of being a socialist
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

John Carter
John Carter

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.
unfair advantage
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.
die

Brody Rodriguez
Brody Rodriguez

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.
More like they'd demand sex work to be reimbursed with labor vouchers.

I'd imagine that any kind of "Sex Work" that would exist would be deemed Socially Necessary.
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.

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.
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.

Lucas Hill
Lucas Hill

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?

John Taylor
John Taylor

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

Easton Adams
Easton Adams

Read through the blog post, pretty much agree with most of it but this part to me seems to stand out as bullshit:

Well for a start, it has not always existed. It did not exist in pre-class societies. For it to emerge you needed several conditions:
the social subordination of women to men
<But there are men prostitutes too, and it existed in most ancient cultures as well, thus it isn't a specific result of sexism against women
the existence of money
<Wouldn't you be able to exchange goods for sex
the existence of class hierarchy
<I guess it is in reference to pimping? If so, it isn't much of an argument since self employed prostitution is still possible

Am I missing / don't know something? This really seems to like the weakest part of his argument.

Blake Ross
Blake Ross

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.
You being ugly compared to someone else being pretty can't be called unfair
ebin :DDDDDDDDDDD

Kevin Martin
Kevin Martin

To anybody confused by this, the quote is from Robot Butler. paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2017/08/26/the-desire-for-a-convergence-of-heterosexuality/
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?"
Amnesty’s draft policy cites support from “human rights organisations” for the call to decriminalise brothels. “Most significantly,” it states, “a large number of sex worker organisations and networks, including the Global Network of Sex Work Projects [NSWP], support the decriminalisation of sex work.” Yet in March this year Alejandra Gil, the NSWP’s former vice-president, was jailed for 15 years for sex trafficking (…) According to NSWP policy, as a pimp Gil was a “sex worker” whose precise role was a “manager”.
theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/22/pimp-amnesty-prostitution-policy-sex-trade-decriminalise-brothel-keepers

Lucas Gomez
Lucas Gomez

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.

good job missing my point about universality
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.

Oliver Rogers
Oliver Rogers

the black Panthers lost
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

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.
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

Andrew King
Andrew King

So did socdems.
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.

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
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.

David Hernandez
David Hernandez

More like they'd demand sex work to be reimbursed with labor vouchers.
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.

Socially necessary applies to any "need" in society including wants that people have.
Agreed. Where did I state otherwise?

A present day socialist society would easily have abundance that would allow average people to have luxuries on top of basic needs being met.
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.

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.
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.

CONT.

Gabriel Barnes
Gabriel Barnes

You still have to explain why socialism wouldn't allow compensation for them.You talk about it like it's just assumed.
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.

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?
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.

Evan Walker
Evan Walker

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.

they were forcefully pushed into it against their will which is why we should legalize it
Lmao

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?

Gavin Jenkins
Gavin Jenkins

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.

Hunter Moore
Hunter Moore

found the thot

Jack Wilson
Jack Wilson

thats one hell of a post

Brandon Moore
Brandon Moore

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.

John Lopez
John Lopez

The only ugly sex workers i've ever fucked is your mother

Jaxon Parker
Jaxon Parker

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.

Jonathan Smith
Jonathan Smith

Do we need a thread like this every few days?

Michael Young
Michael Young

Yes they are boring but they get reddit newfags to leave

Leo Lewis
Leo Lewis

the only good post in this dumb thread

Jose Miller
Jose Miller

The legalization of prostitution is the expansion of capitalist markets

Attached: thot-patrol.jpg (119.83 KB, 923x785)

Jayden Powell
Jayden Powell

Who would accede to this framework?
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).
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
There is plenty of unproductive work with little to no training, like janitorial work. Not an argument.
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.
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.

Is taking pictures of yourself and uploading them to the internet something that is worth allocating Social Product towards?
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:
This is qualitatively different from the vast majority of the kinds of sex work that exist under Capitalism today.
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.

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.
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.
how do we account for how much Labour they have actually performed?
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.

why not fight for, oh I don't know, a jobs guarantee, rather than transferring the current legalization of pot model onto prostitution?
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.

Jaxon Morales
Jaxon Morales

Cockshott blog
The Puritans carried out the only sucessful revolution in Britain. They cut of the King’s head and put the fear of God into the upper classes: no mean achievement. They acted with determination against a licentious, debauched and corrupt aristocracy – all to the good. When liberals use the word puritan as a slur they are betraying the actual origins of liberalism and adopting the language of the old Tory opponents of the Puritans.

Fucking based

Attached: 71572571753.png (1.77 MB, 1252x1530)

Gabriel Ortiz
Gabriel Ortiz

Cockshott refuses to call Manning a 'she'

Attached: Untitled.png (19.41 KB, 432x200)

Oliver King
Oliver King

Based, things like this are why he belongs in the top tier in that list thing.

Grayson Scott
Grayson Scott

I should charge my friends by the hour every time we hangout.

Aiden Torres
Aiden Torres

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).
Why do people have to work as sex workers? Why should we create a "market" for X or Y or Z just because there is demand for it? Notice how I've never once argued that certain kinds of sex work should be prohibited, merely that their existence is contingent on political will. Free association between Labourers is fine with regards to sex work, my contention is with allowing individuals to issue labour vouchers because it starts to introduce mechanisms that make them function like money. Again you're misunderstanding the entire framework. It's not that there is an inherent problem with "Sex Work" (I notice you've refused to engage with my comments about how this isn't a materialist framework), it's that in order to allocate a share of the TOTAL Social Product for Labour that does not directly produce anything, there has to politics involved.

There is plenty of unproductive work with little to no training, like janitorial work. Not an argument.
Not an argument for or against what? you do realise that saying "not an argument" LITERALLY isn't a counterpoint and just leads to infinite regress right? Janitors are literally not comparable to Sex Workers, their labour is actually contributing directly to productive labour in the same environment.

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.
What? It literally doesn't apply to compensation for any kind of work, and the questions wouldn't be easier if Prostition was fully part of the White Market either. These same questions exist within all spheres of unproductive Labour. The problem with "Sex Work" is that no-one has an actual definition of it that is Marxist.

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.
I don't think you know what use values are, because you're unironically spouting subjective value theory talking points here.

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.
Do you have a link? Keeping track of who is more popular without controls literally leads to certain producers getting paid more for less work, which cannot work in a labour credit economy. You're right that market style mechanisms can be used to help with demand problems but that's not the same as actual markets.

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.
Wait so you critique me by asking for specifics but specifics also aren't important? Not sure I follow. Define ingenuity & reasonable. I actually have no clue what half of your arguments are because you don't seem to be making any either, and I wasn't even aware we were arguing.

Aaron Gonzalez
Aaron Gonzalez

It's best to take a pragmatic position on sex work. Before we're able to abolish the conditions for it under socialism, we should pursue those policies that minimize misery for the people involved. If this means legalizing and regulating, then that's the proper action to take. If this means making it illegal, let's do that. I don't know the subject well enough to know which option is better in practice, but I do know we shouldn't keep this shit banned for dumb moralistic reasons.
He's an old man.

Jeremiah Murphy
Jeremiah Murphy

my contention is with allowing individuals to issue labour vouchers because it starts to introduce mechanisms that make them function like money
Yes. This should be avoided. Labor vouchers cannot circulate freely. They're a means for the workers to reward productive work of their comrades, not an exchange commodity.
Keeping track of who is more popular without controls literally leads to certain producers getting paid more for less work, which cannot work in a labour credit economy.
How so? You just make sure that all sex workers that are popular enough to be considered productive are paid at the same rate.
The problem with "Sex Work" is that no-one has an actual definition of it that is Marxist.
It is clear that, by the hour, sex work is more taxing than other work, both emotionally and physically. Hence it is proper that sex workers should be compensated at a rate above that of the average worker. How much higher this rate ought to be can be determined through a mix of popular debate and scientific inquiry into the difficulty of the job.
This is similar to how we'd compare the work of, say, a surgeon to that of an office clerk. Most of us would agree that the surgeon does more intensive work and should be compensated at a higher rate, but putting a number on this still requires some thought.

Brandon Wilson
Brandon Wilson

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
Yeah, that way they don't have to pay taxes on it. Decriminalizing amounts to the same as legalizing and subsidizing it.

Charles Reed
Charles Reed

Yes. This should be avoided. Labor vouchers cannot circulate freely. They're a means for the workers to reward productive work of their comrades, not an exchange commodity.
Yeah exactly

How so? You just make sure that all sex workers that are popular enough to be considered productive are paid at the same rate.
Ok, so you're agreeing with what I proposed in my earlier posts about managing the allocation of vouchers to potential workers. I am concerned about the way you used "productive" here, in what context do we mean this?

It is clear that, by the hour, sex work is more taxing than other work, both emotionally and physically. Hence it is proper that sex workers should be compensated at a rate above that of the average worker. How much higher this rate ought to be can be determined through a mix of popular debate and scientific inquiry into the difficulty of the job.

This is similar to how we'd compare the work of, say, a surgeon to that of an office clerk. Most of us would agree that the surgeon does more intensive work and should be compensated at a higher rate, but putting a number on this still requires some thought.

Here is where you lose me, it's incredibly difficult to justify this when you're using labour tokens as essentially a balance of payments system, because any labour being rewarded at a rate that is above the hours of labour performed has to be covered elsewhere. All you're really doing here is reintroducing the division of labour.

Alexander Rodriguez
Alexander Rodriguez

the authoritarian left and authoritarian right agree on so many things lol.

Elijah Jenkins
Elijah Jenkins

Prostitution should and be replaced with sex co-ops for sex enthusiast and hobbyist.
Also, camming is fine if you both understand it's just sex

Henry Wood
Henry Wood

He's an old man.
This
Anyone expecting Cockshot to not be biased on half this stuff because of his age is deluding their self.

Joshua Ortiz
Joshua Ortiz

scam artist
It's only a scam if you're actually dumb enough to believe a relationship will blossom out of it.
Seriously tho.
How is this worse than you jacking it to anime?

Owen Nguyen
Owen Nguyen

Writes about new computers and equations to use in a new socialist economy
<H-h-h-he's just an o-o-old man!

Attached: 1497981127849.jpg (4.71 KB, 97x144)

Austin Garcia
Austin Garcia

Marxian socialists have long been opponents of prostitution aiming to eliminate it once they came to power
Pointless appeal to majority.
And what, after all, is the professional prostitute? She is a person whose energy is not used for the collective; a person who lives off others, by taking from the rations of others. Can this sort of thing be allowed in a workers’ republic? No, it cannot. It cannot be allowed, because it reduces the reserves of energy and the number of working hands that are creating the national wealth and the general welfare, from the point of view of the national economy the professional prostitute is a labour deserter
This quote provides absolutely no argument for why prostitution is different from some other non-material producing service work.
If both work, both emerging sweating from effort, the justification for calling prostitution ‘work’ vanishes. Are we to call the clients too, sex ‘workers’?
Except sex-work is often not as simple as "lay down on the bed and get fucked". They're usually providing some kind of service, and there are material costs to that service, like being good at it, appearing fuckable, procuring customers, engaging sexually when they don't personally want to. There are reasons why Johns engage with sex-workers instead of finding a regular person to fuck.
Take gambling, a moment’s thought is enough to see that it merely redistributes existing wealth, and produces nothing new of value.
Gambling is a form of gaming. It's intrinsically not any different than an arcade and many people treat it casinos like grown-up arcades. Cockshott keeps arguing like services aren't productive activity.
In a society where goods were allocated on ration, a prostitute was seen to be taking the rations of others and not contributing to national wealth and general welfare.
The problem of this is someone double-dipping with rations, the same problem would exist with any kind of personal bartering. If they only get the rations someone else is willing to pay them, then they are contributing to society in some way.
Never mind that since Roman times the aim of commercial sex had been for men to avoid any responsibility for the children who result. These could expect neither inheritance nor sustenance from the fathers
[Citation needed]
If a criminal activity is driven underground, that is a good thing. It means that the activity is being curtailed.
No, it doesn't, and even if it was, that comes with a shitton of other problems and the activity being illegal. There's a reason people get regularly murdered in the narcotics industry and not in the alcohol industry.
If fear of the police makes murderers feel compelled to bury their victims under garden patios rather than just throwing the body out on the street for the bin men to collect, that is surely to be welcomed.
Meaningless feelings-based statement.
The great thing about the Scandinavian approach to prostitution is that it treats buying sex as another sex crime. Buyers of sex are categorised along with rapists and paedophiles
This is a ridiculous statement based on emotional reasoning. It's incredibly obvious Cockshott isn't rationally arguing against prostitution but has a clear emotional stance against it, and is trying to find arguments to prove that position.

cont.

Cooper Mitchell
Cooper Mitchell

We would like a law that prohibited the employment of wage labour, just as Soviet law prohibited it. Until we can have that, we support any and every step to crack down on exploitation. We will never line up with commercial interests that want to open up new fields of exploitation.
Reducing the proletariats' options of employment does not make them less exploited, it literally does the opposite. Laws against prostitution don't make crack-whores' lives better.
It is special because the action of sex organs produces people, whereas the labour of hand and brain produces things. Post-slave societies treat people as different from things. The law treats sex organs and hands very differently. It says that if you grab someone by the pussy or the balls you are guilty of sexual assault and liable to a custodial sentence of up to 10 years. But you can, when meeting, shake a stranger’s hand with impunity.
All of this is completely irrelevant. When people say "sex isn't special", they're not saying "sex is literally like any other activity that can't produce humans", they're saying "sex isn't sacred or an intrinsically unique activity"; also cultural norms that create laws aren't arguments.
Next, why should socialists accept puritanism as a term of abuse.
Because when people use the word "puritan" they're referring to an idea of social repression and conservatism.
A person is economically exploited if they get back in income less money for an hour of work than the value added by an hour of work. In this economic sense, self employed whores are no more exploited than a self employed electrician or plumber. They do not sell their labour power to an employer who then uses it to produce a commodity. Instead, the self employed sell their services directly to customers and collect the full value themselves. This is one reason why a prostitute earns more per hour than a cook preparing Big Macs.
Is he trying to argue in bad faith by conflating self-employed sex-workers with employed sex-workers or does he just not think there's a difference? Employed sex-workers are objectively exploited.
Where brothel keeping is legalised, capitalist businesses come to dominate the trade, meaning that an economic exploitation becomes combined with an intensified sexual exploitation.
Such is how things go under Capitalism. That's not an argument for criminalizing prostitution now.

I have yet to see anyone prove that sex-work is intrinsically economically any different than any other service. Does it have negative social consequences? Possibly, but so do a shitton of other jobs. Are there people involved in it who are essentially petit-bourgeoisie or labor aristocracy? Yes, so does literally every industry.

Isaac Torres
Isaac Torres

Old computer man who works with numbers and theoretical models is out of touch
it checks out

Attached: depositphotos-11444953-stock-photo-shoulder-shrug.jpg (48.3 KB, 1024x547)

Alexander Mitchell
Alexander Mitchell

Reducing the proletariats' options of employment does not make them less exploited, it literally does the opposite. Laws against prostitution don't make crack-whores' lives better.

Imprisoned crackwhores cannot:
1) Catch AIDS from their johns
2) Continue their crack addiction
3) Get murdered by the variety of predators that victimise streetwalkers
4) Are provided basic nutrition, healthcare and shelter at state expense*

So you are quite literally wrong. Laws against prostitution absolutely do improve the lives of crackwhores. Practically none of the women who're forced to sell themselves on the street would engage in that activity if they had a free choice in the matter. The few who are happy to sell their bodies as a living fleshlight are the same as the sort of men who work in pornography: sociopaths who're happy to meet their own needs by preying on others.

* yes, these are generally shit in prisons, but that is an argument for better prisons

Adam Allen
Adam Allen

tfw haven't heard one decent argument against sex co-ops this entire thread
I guess we're all in agreement.
nice

Attached: kkopojipo.png (789.38 KB, 1366x768)

Landon Martinez
Landon Martinez

Practically none of the women who're forced to sell themselves on the street would engage in that activity if they had a free choice in the matter
<Prostitutes wouldn't choose to be prostitutes if they had a choice, so we should take away all of their choices and just put them in prison
???

Isaiah Reyes
Isaiah Reyes

I am concerned about the way you used "productive" here, in what context do we mean this?
I simply mean it in the sense that you need to create some socially recognized value in order to receive labor tokens. A sex worker with no clientele isn't creating value.
it's incredibly difficult to justify this when you're using labour tokens as essentially a balance of payments system, because any labour being rewarded at a rate that is above the hours of labour performed has to be covered elsewhere.
Then we balance it accordingly. Office clerks who get to browse Reddit all day get rewarded at a rate below one labor-hour/hour and surgeons get compensated above that.
In practice it'll have to be managed dynamically, your extra reward being determined relative to the average intensity of labor at that moment.

Elijah Butler
Elijah Butler

Prostitution will never, ever be empowerment for a wide variety of reasons.
The liberal narrative is literally "arbeit macht frei"

John Adams
John Adams

Are there people involved in it who are essentially petit-bourgeoisie or labor aristocracy? Yes, so does literally every industry.
This is where all of my concerns about it come from with regards to advocacy, although I realise I'm the only one in the thread who has really been talking about that as opposed to the "Sex Work" debate in general. This is why I keep arguing for a rigorous Class based analysis of the nebulous term "Sex Work", to reveal the obscured relations within so that we can focus on the interests of the Lumpen or Proletarian within instead of the Petit-Bourgeois or Aristocratic elements who seem to be only be concerned with selling others down the river, as they are always wont to do.

Carson Cook
Carson Cook

REEEEEEEEEEEEE WOMEN CAN'T DO X WITH THEIR BODY BECAUSE OF MY FEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELINGGGSSSS

Grow up please. I don't think children should waste their time on video games but I would not invoke the power of the state to enforce this as a policy.

Chase Watson
Chase Watson

black women will save us all

Jason Torres
Jason Torres

anti-prostitution is just muh fee fees and not being against the commodification of ones body

Nathaniel Martinez
Nathaniel Martinez

I found this interesting isj.org.uk/the-sex-work-debate/

Christopher Baker
Christopher Baker

Stop disgracing the Ilyich hat with your unintelligible nonsense. Put on a ☭TANKIE☭ flair instead if you want to pretend to serve the greater good by leveraging the power of the state to execute chiropractors.

Caleb Anderson
Caleb Anderson

There is no coherent pro-prosititution leftwing line. At best there's an argument for decriminalization of prostitution and instead criminalizing soliciting it, but it should always be fought on the systemic level.

Jaxson Morgan
Jaxson Morgan

see and Lenin was not pro-prostitution.

Parker Carter
Parker Carter

The critically important point here, I feel, is alleviating the circumstances that force many women into prostitution, purely our of desperation. This is what we should, by my understanding, all (at least on this board) agree on, and should be our focus, as the kernel of the issue.
Having removed that, what are you going to do, imprison/shoot people for having sex?
Empowerment of any worker is generally a contradictory concept in a capitalist mode of production, but it seems to me that legalised prostitution creates safer environments for women/men that are currently forced into this occupation, much like enforcing safety regulations for workers, say builders' bosses have to supply them with hardhats and other protective equipment. We may dissagree with the terms under which the builder labours, but does anyone really disagree with enforcing such a law at this point? Should we all die waiting for your revolution?
Keeping prostitution illegal is not going to stop it from happening. We should show prostitutes solidarity, especially those whose material conditions have forced them into this situation, not fight and persecute them like cheap, judgemental bourgeois moralists.

Samuel Jones
Samuel Jones

Prostitution is mostly orthoganol to capitalism va socialism and shouldn’t be used to purity test socialism as such. It exists more on the liberty vs authority axis.

I think it should be legalized because sexual functioning is a basic near-uniform capacity which can be utilized to fray elite concentrations of wealth. It gives capital access to dumb unworthy primates, thereby reducing extremes of poverty while also giving excluded people opportunities to prove that they shouldn’t have been excluded. Furthermore, legalizing prostitution increases currency strength proportional to a population’s sexual motivations, increasing the willingness of very sexually motivated people who might not otherwise be efficient economic agents to work hard and delay gratification. Prostitutes also preferentially soak sexual demand from potentially unfit parents, reducing long-term incidence of child abuse. Finally, prostitutes have keen personal incentives to learn, disseminate, and apply information about sexual health, thereby increasing standards without requiring additional outlays from the top.

Prostitution legalization constitutes an increase in economic freedom even when state run or heavily regulated, but thereby demonstrates excellently that economic freedom as such is not in opposition to socialist objectives.

Blake Davis
Blake Davis

imprison/shoot people for having sex?
Yes. Leaving something so important to the sexual free market is bourgeois.
economic freedom as such is not in opposition to socialist objectives
This is your brain on liberalism. Trading or "free exchange" or whatever is anti-socialist, that is why the whole nontransferable labour voucher meme even exists.

Logan Sullivan
Logan Sullivan

If fear of the police makes murderers feel compelled to bury their victims under garden patios rather than just throwing the body out on the street for the bin men to collect, that is surely to be welcomed.
Meaningless feelings-based statement.

Are you OK, user?
Reducing the proletariats' options of employment does not make them less exploited
There are people who say something like that about interfering with the freedom of strike-breakers. And they are right, as long as you keep your analysis to one individual only, all else equal. Society is not a sum of individuals with an existence that could be understood as prior to it, and an individualist viewpoint leads to liberal idiocy, and it remains that even if you sprinkle some revolutionary words over this 💩.
A person is economically exploited if they get back in income less money for an hour of work than the value added by an hour of work. In this economic sense, self employed whores are no more exploited than a self employed electrician or plumber. They do not sell their labour power to an employer who then uses it to produce a commodity. Instead, the self employed sell their services directly to customers and collect the full value themselves. This is one reason why a prostitute earns more per hour than a cook preparing Big Macs.
Is he trying to argue in bad faith by conflating self-employed sex-workers with employed sex-workers or does he just not think there's a difference?
Is horny retard user arguing in bad faith or is it ADHD? Cockshott distinguishes between self-employed and not self employed, he literally says this at the end of the article:
Where brothel keeping is illegal the majority of prostitutes are independent and are sexually but not economically exploited. Where brothel keeping is legalised, capitalist businesses come to dominate the trade, meaning that an economic exploitation becomes combined with an intensified sexual exploitation.

Aiden Sullivan
Aiden Sullivan

imprison/shoot people for having sex?
Yes. Leaving something so important to the sexual free market is bourgeois.
What? This makes zero sense, rephrase this gibberish.

economic freedom as such is not in opposition to socialist objectives
You're totally missing the point of what I said.
Until the revolution, should we make the occupation of plumbing illegal? It's a degrading job that often requires people to handle pipes full of shit.
Should we not try and enforce laws that protect workers lives?

The problem is you don't see prostitutes as workers.

Christian Bennett
Christian Bennett

The critically important point here, I feel, is alleviating the circumstances that force many women into prostitution, purely our of desperation
Maybe in third world countries where women do it because they would starve otherwise. In the west they do it so they can live an even more materialist lifestyle.

Having removed that, what are you going to do, imprison/shoot people for having sex?
This is a gross vulgarization. Ultimately yes. Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.

Empowerment of any worker is generally a contradictory concept in a capitalist mode of production, but it seems to me that legalised prostitution creates safer environments for women/men that are currently forced into this occupation
Of course capitalists would want emerging markets to be established free of catalysts
However in the areas that are making it safer no one is forced into it. Conditions do not get better for women in India.

much like enforcing safety regulations for workers, say builders' bosses have to supply them with hardhats and other protective equipment.
sure but this isn't specific to socialism unto itself. It can also be used as a capitalist tool to gain favor with workers. ie Henry Ford paying workers enough to buy the car they made. He isn't a great pioneer of socialism he just used a tactic to get ahead in the market.

We may dissagree with the terms under which the builder labours, but does anyone really disagree with enforcing such a law at this point? Should we all die waiting for your revolution?
I'm sorry what? Dying waiting for a revolution? how is this related?

Keeping prostitution illegal is not going to stop it from happening
No one is claiming it will.
Keeping prostitution illegal prevents it from growing at the rate it would if it was legalized.

We should show prostitutes solidarity
Lol fucking why?

especially those whose material conditions have forced them into this situation, not fight and persecute them like cheap, judgemental bourgeois moralists
Sure, only if you can prove they have absolutely no other option.
In places such as India the Communist Party is strongly against prostitution

cpim.org/content/partys-perspective-womens-issues-and-tasks-dec-2005

Attached: 1404658821171.jpg (47.22 KB, 500x329)

Eli Long
Eli Long

Prostitution legalization constitutes an increase in economic freedom even when state run or heavily regulated, but thereby demonstrates excellently that economic freedom as such is not in opposition to socialist objectives.

Imagine supporting capitalism this much as still thinking you're a leftist

Isaiah Clark
Isaiah Clark

Where brothel keeping is illegal the majority of prostitutes are independent and are sexually but not economically exploited. Where brothel keeping is legalised, capitalist businesses come to dominate the trade, meaning that an economic exploitation becomes combined with an intensified sexual exploitation.
He ignores that brothels don't need legalization to exist and let capitalists extract surplus value from prostitutes. Make them Co-ops or state owned to eliminate exploitation.
I never said that, your "economic freedom as such is not in opposition to socialist objectives" is still nonsense

Attached: michel-houellebecq-just-like-unrestrained-economic-liberalism-and-for-quote-at-storemypic-3f1c2.png (52.42 KB, 600x600)

Logan Reyes
Logan Reyes

Should we not try and enforce laws that protect workers lives?
We should enforce laws to reduce the amount of prostitutes

The problem is you don't see prostitutes as workers.
They're not they are petite bourgeois if anything

Jose Ramirez
Jose Ramirez

While these are generally interesting points, I still don't understand why you separate prostitution from any other job or occupation which offers a service. At the end of the day the average worker works in a car factory not because they like producing cars, but to provide themselves material sustenance.

Keeping prostitution illegal prevents it from growing at the rate it would if it was legalized.

Citation needed. This is also the same argument for the war on drugs.

I literally copy pasted what you said:

Nicholas Nguyen
Nicholas Nguyen

Also how is passing laws that protect workers from dying/coming to serious harm in support of "economic freedom"? You are literally changing my words and arguing against a ghost of your creation.

Grayson Nguyen
Grayson Nguyen

Show where I said
Until the revolution, should we make the occupation of plumbing illegal? It's a degrading job that often requires people to handle pipes full of shit.
Should we not try and enforce laws that protect workers lives?
The problem is you don't see prostitutes as workers.

Oliver Clark
Oliver Clark

While these are generally interesting points, I still don't understand why you separate prostitution from any other job or occupation which offers a service

Well lets look at it in this way, Drug dealers also provide a service, do you want to fight for the right of drug dealers to peddle heroine to teenagers? Of course not. Why would you support services that are harmful to the working class.

Citation needed.
Literally every place that legalized prostitution.

This is also the same argument for the war on drugs.
In the US for example the states that legalized marijuana saw an increase in the marijuana market.

Parker Jenkins
Parker Jenkins

Regulation that restricts an economic activity reduces economic freedom, legalizing a trade, exchange, or a type of work increases it. Great rhetoric, no arguments.

Caleb Bell
Caleb Bell

I think I've been pretty clear that I see legalisation of prostitution as the only way of effectively regulating it.

First of all thank you for actually arguing in good faith.
Well lets look at it in this way, Drug dealers also provide a service

I feel that this argument could be applied to any service-providing occupation, could you clear that up?
It seems to rely on assuming that prostitution is inherently bad for workers, which I don't understand. If anything legalisation could mean the creation of structures that for example test prostitutes for STDs, making it safer than before.

Isn't the best way to regulate an activity to legalise it, within some constrained limits? For example, with drug legalisation, it seems to be much more prefferable for people to drink alchohol/smoke cigarettes or marijuana than use opioids or crack.

John Miller
John Miller

plurbleflurblewakkabakka

Easton Edwards
Easton Edwards

I feel that this argument could be applied to any service-providing occupation, could you clear that up?
There are members of the proletariat who, work against class interests. There are several services that are directly harmful to people. Examples are: drug dealers, mercenaries, unions busters, human traffickers, etc. All of these including prostitution are bad for the working class and the people they interact with.

It seems to rely on assuming that prostitution is inherently bad for workers, which I don't understand
Having sex with strangers is very unhealthy both mentally and physically.

If anything legalisation could mean the creation of structures that for example test prostitutes for STDs, making it safer than before
This does by no means make it safer
Lets assumes the STD checks reduce the amount of prostitutes infected.
In a world where 50% infection rate is reduced to 10% that doesn't matter much when the over all amount of prostitutes increases to make that 10% now greater than the over all amount that was previously infected.

and thats assuming it works perfectly then there are faked tests, and its not like they get tests before every client. If it was once a month they could easily get infected and continue their work before tested again.

And the danger associated with prostitution currently is a deterrent for a lot of people.

Zachary Wright
Zachary Wright

There are members of the proletariat who, work against class interests.
I perfectly agree with this, but I'm not convinced that prostitutes are among them.

Having sex with strangers is very unhealthy both mentally and physically.

It doesn't seem to be physically unhealthy if protection is used systematically, at least not more so than sexual intercourse between people in a relationship who have had other partners in the past, something which would be easier regulated if prostitution was legalised.
As for the mental health part, I'm not sure this is objectively true.
I can also definitely see situations in which sex workers could have meaningful relationships, for example with clients who are disabled, rather than just being a stranger to have intercourse with.
Now, assuming that it is true that it is objectively true that sex with strangers is mentally harmful (which I'm not convinced is a general truth), isn't it the prostitute that bears much more weight, comes to much more harm than the client?

In a world where 50% infection rate is reduced to 10% that doesn't matter much when the over all amount of prostitutes increases to make that 10% now greater than the over all amount that was previously infected.

It does statistically lower the chances of a client having intercourse with an infected prostitute, and thus, if combined with the systematic use of protection actually have a massive impact on the statistical chances of getting an STD.

And the danger associated with prostitution currently is a deterrent for a lot of people.

The fact you feel this is a good thing, I feel is the root of our differing viewpoints. It seems to suggest that there is something inherently wrong or immoral with having intercourse with a prostitute. For example, I have never, and do not see myself ever, having sex with a prostitute because, as far as I know, almost all the prostitutes in my country are victims of trafficking as children. So I'm not saying it's all fine and dandy - however, I don't think there is something inherently worse in prostitution than say the job of a massage parlor or a personal trainer.

Eli Reed
Eli Reed

Yo, what about trap sexbot with tight fleshlight boibussy tho?

Cameron Foster
Cameron Foster

Also, what is your opinion on casual sexual relations?

Landon Stewart
Landon Stewart

casual sexual relations

Attached: reeducation.png (741.6 KB, 1024x576)

Gavin Murphy
Gavin Murphy

He doesn't mean "economic freedom" in the conventional sense. You're right, that would be capitalist apologia. What he means, I think, is the idea that people should be able to organize whatever economic activity they see fit, within the structural boundaries of the relevant system. Under capitalism this means you're able to start any enterprise that makes a profit. Under socialism this would mean you're able to start any enterprise a sufficient number of workers regard as productive.
Like someone previously mentioned in the thread, you might think videogames are a waste of time, but this doesn't mean socialism won't produce them. Other workers might enjoy videogames and wish to see them produced, and since they're a significant section of the population, they should be free to push a part of the social product towards it. Same goes for prostitution.

Honestly, prostitution is unrelated to socialism vs. capitalism, except to the extent that it's a despicable institution when combined with exploitation.

Hunter Bailey
Hunter Bailey

persecuting kinks

Attached: gigagulag.jpg (172.68 KB, 707x1003)

Camden Perry
Camden Perry

Other workers might enjoy videogames and wish to see them produced, and since they're a significant section of the population, they should be free to push a part of the social product towards it.
What stops said workers from utilizing institutions to assist with either organizational problems or material problems and them pooling their own share of the social product towards it without requiring that individuals be able to claim a part of the social product for whatever takes their fancy above and beyond that which they've contributed? I fail to see how this would be feasible to a large degree under lower stage communism. I have 0 problem with people pursuing exploits such as this but if they're capable of doing them with marginal inputs I fail to see where the qualification lies for their right to take from the social product for a project without political arrangements which make said things possible, and certainly not when there are still questions of scarcity, which there would be for a very long time.

Christian Ramirez
Christian Ramirez

What do you mean by "political arrangements," exactly? The way I imagine videogames being funded is by taking a subtracting a piece of what people get in labor vouchers. This is then put into a cultural fund. People democratically get to decide which projects are maintained with this fund.
I don't see why this isn't possible under "scarcity." To be honest I'm quite skeptical about scarcity/post-scarcity distinctions on a whole. People are always able to find ways to waste more resources. At some point you have to say "let's stop and just enjoy our free time." A society without mandatory labor is something you have to work towards, not something that will magically appear. That's precisely why we need socialism in the first place.

Prostitution would have to work according to a different model, one more appropriate for consumer services. Clients pay an amount of labor tokens for the time spent, and prostitutes receive labor tokens for it.

Aaron Hall
Aaron Hall

What do you mean by "political arrangements," exactly? The way I imagine videogames being funded is by taking a subtracting a piece of what people get in labor vouchers. This is then put into a cultural fund. People democratically get to decide which projects are maintained with this fund.
Ok cool, thanks for clarifying, this is more or less what I've advocated for certain things in this thread, in fact we already see models like this online that could be modified and we can even look to things like film boards or even how things were arranged in previous socialist societies.

I don't see why this isn't possible under "scarcity." To be honest I'm quite skeptical about scarcity/post-scarcity distinctions on a whole. People are always able to find ways to waste more resources. At some point you have to say "let's stop and just enjoy our free time." A society without mandatory labor is something you have to work towards, not something that will magically appear. That's precisely why we need socialism in the first place.
There is a pretty big distinction between what is considered "post-scarcity" and post-scarcity proper, which is subject to a social understanding of having enough resources to provide all people with X up to some standard, and then somehow developing technology that allows us to ignore laws of physics. The first is entirely feasible, it's just that certain things are more scarce than others, which can pose problems for models for humans to access certain activities or things. I agree that a Society without mandatory labour, Higher Stage Communism is why we need Lower Stage Communism in the first place. The question is that as we develop our ability to produce things at which point does it become possible for any individual to access the social product with increasingly less distinctions, yet at the same time also requiring them to be renumerated for their labour. These are political questions of abundance and scarcity. At a certain point, it's actually just pointless to compensate people for labour and working towards that point can pose political barriers to enabling individuals to be renumerated for what amounts to their "leisure time" for lack of a better word.

Prostitution would have to work according to a different model, one more appropriate for consumer services. Clients pay an amount of labor tokens for the time spent, and prostitutes receive labor tokens for it.
I understand you're using Prostitution as a word to mean what it does under Capitalism as applied to Socialism but Prostitution ceases to exist as Prostitution because Labour Vouchers cannot be exchange. Prostitutes wouldn't be able to receive labour tokens proportional to the amount of services rendered; they would only be able to receive labour tokens equivalent to the hours that they worked, otherwise you're reintroducing transferability to labour vouchers, which implies a regress back towards Capitalist relations.

Elijah Taylor
Elijah Taylor

I understand you're using Prostitution as a word to mean what it does under Capitalism as applied to Socialism but Prostitution ceases to exist as Prostitution because Labour Vouchers cannot be exchange.
Then how are they conferred to you for your labor?

Lucas Brooks
Lucas Brooks

Prostitutes wouldn't be able to receive labour tokens proportional to the amount of services rendered; they would only be able to receive labour tokens equivalent to the hours that they worked
Sure, there would be an intermediary step. The tokens of the client would be taken out of circulation, and those of the prostitute would be issued freshly. But this doesn't change that the prostitute is having sex in exchange for their material subsistence.
They're issued to you. Technically they can be "exchanged" between people, it's just a strip of paper. But they are no use in the hands of someone else. Your name is on them. Only you can redeem them.
Also, in practice they'll be digital, on a debit-card equivalent. "Exchange" would mean a bank transfer, which wouldn't be available.

Jonathan Rodriguez
Jonathan Rodriguez

I perfectly agree with this, but I'm not convinced that prostitutes are among them.
"not being convinced" isn't an argument

It doesn't seem to be physically unhealthy if protection is used systematically
This does not take into account not using protection, protection failing, protection that does not protect againsts stds(lamb skin etc)

at least not more so than sexual intercourse between people in a relationship who have had other partners in the past
this is unrelated.

As for the mental health part, I'm not sure this is objectively true.
"not being sure" isn't much to support having a high amount of sexual partners has any positive benefits

I can also definitely see situations in which sex workers could have meaningful relationships, for example with clients who are disabled, rather than just being a stranger to have intercourse with.
This is an imaginary scenario

Now, assuming that it is true that it is objectively true that sex with strangers is mentally harmful (which I'm not convinced is a general truth), isn't it the prostitute that bears much more weight, comes to much more harm than the client?
I suppose, if you have a malevolent view of the working class at ancap levels.

It does statistically lower the chances of a client having intercourse with an infected prostitute,
Like I said above, if the amount of people infected is lowered from (lets say) 50% to 10% that doesn't matter too much when that 10% could easily be a higher number of people than previously while it was criminalized.

and thus, if combined with the systematic use of protection actually have a massive impact on the statistical chances of getting an STD.
that is only in a perfect situation which isn't good odds

The fact you feel this is a good thing, I feel is the root of our differing viewpoints. It seems to suggest that there is something inherently wrong or immoral with having intercourse with a prostitute
only if you think valuing individual and societal health over muh dick is an inherent moral judgement

For example, I have never, and do not see myself ever, having sex with a prostitute because, as far as I know, almost all the prostitutes in my country are victims of trafficking as children. So I'm not saying it's all fine and dandy - however, I don't think there is something inherently worse in prostitution than say the job of a massage parlor or a personal trainer.
I am making judgement based on health, however you right there are making a moral statement that seems to be based on some sort of spook you have.

Also, what is your opinion on casual sexual relations?
Not a good thing, a symptom of late capitalism
was not me

James Young
James Young

If you believe you can control a woman's body I don't think that makes you a socialist

Zachary Gonzalez
Zachary Gonzalez

If you believe you can control a woman's body I don't think that makes you a socialist
What if the woman uses her body to promote capitalism and anti communism?

Michael Sanders
Michael Sanders

No. Lenin even executed Prostitutes as they were a cancer raised by the degenerate rich elite living from the workers' blood. Anarchists tried to re-socialize them but failed and lost everything. Stop supporting the terror of Prostitution you SocDems. It's the most disgusting business on earth producing people of a slavish and vile nature with no way to escape and revert back.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_the_Soviet_Union

Here for the Liberals that are gonna cry about this. But Lenin knew how to deal with capitalist societal degeneration. Probably better than Stalin.

Attached: lenin-the-madman.png (242.94 KB, 980x696)

Nathan Reyes
Nathan Reyes

Yeah I'm just saying that the "Prostitute" wouldn't be issued the amount that each "Client" spent; they'd be issued Labour Vouchers in accordance with how long they'd worked. This would also have to be tied to a centralized intermediary system as with any other service; the "Prostitute" couldn't be an independent labourer in this sense, because obviously neither party would have the ability to issue labour vouchers. You'd have to get pretty creative to prevent fraud if you gave individuals the ability to transfer labour vouchers between each other for individual services, otherwise you come dangerously close to money.

Blake Thomas
Blake Thomas

The Soviet Union maintained commodity money and was in the process of attempting to create Socialism out of what was essentially Fuedalism. The Conditions are different; I doubt you would see large swathes of Prostitutes refusing to participate in Proletarian Society and it would possibly even be prohibited or abolished given that with no Money there can be no prostitution as exists under other modes of production. Do you get kicks out of simultaneously pretending to be shadow the hedgehog and a holier than thou puritan?

Christian Gray
Christian Gray

Is this an argument to ask the capitalists to pivot to female counter-revolutionaries because we're not allowed to imprison them?

Angel Hughes
Angel Hughes

They're issued to you. Technically they can be "exchanged" between people, it's just a strip of paper. But they are no use in the hands of someone else. Your name is on them. Only you can redeem them.
Also, in practice they'll be digital, on a debit-card equivalent. "Exchange" would mean a bank transfer, which wouldn't be available.
So who issues them? What's to prevent that person or system issuing them to a prostitute with the prostitute's name on them? How do you prevent black market prostitution, something that has existed in socialist countries even where it was banned? Beyond the fact that labor vouchers are exchanged, at the very least when they are conferred from the bureaucracy, how do you think socialism would prevent prostitution in exchange directly for goods? People trade EBT for drugs or alcohol all the time. Or do you think that labor vouchers won't be traded for alcohol and alocohol for sex?

Grayson Diaz
Grayson Diaz

What's to prevent that person or system issuing them to a prostitute with the prostitute's name on them?
Proper checks and procedures. Labor hours that are issued need to be accounted for. How do corporations prevent employees from issuing money to their whores? It's called bookkeeping.
How do you prevent black market prostitution, something that has existed in socialist countries even where it was banned?
Labor tokens. Previous socialist countries didn't use them. You can't have a significant black market without currency.
how do you think socialism would prevent prostitution in exchange directly for goods?
Not. There isn't any way to prevent that. What are you expecting?
We'd have social programs to get women out of desperate situations like that.

Jonathan Watson
Jonathan Watson

Something I've been hinting at in this thread multiple times in earlier posts is that when in Lower Stage Communism you transition to what is essentially SNLT as an average per unit measure of how much of your Labour Tokens/Vouchers you have to redeem, is that access to actual goods produced have a pretty obvious accounting corollary, and that even with services since there is labour being performed by an actual other human this is also pretty clear as long as the accounting mechanism is rigorous.

As pertaining to my repeated requests & attempts to arrive at a Marxist analysis of Sex Work and for the social relations of various sectors to be brought into view, it's pretty clear that IF a Socialist form of sexual services such as Prostitution somehow existed and could be renumerated how that _could_ theoretically be handled, but what of other services such as erotica? A digitally produced photograph has an SNLT of functionally 0 to both produce and reproduce, and since there are no copyright protections, how exactly would this even be possible to sustain?

We've had conversations about using models like a "Communist Patreon" whereby a centralized agency can distribute fractions of labour tokens collectively to all producers who are then paid in accordance with the amount of labour hours they contribute but how do we account for this when the initial labour time involved in say, a photoshoot has a fixed rate? All content would have to be redeemable for free for a small periodical fee? That's the only way I could see such a thing working which would naturally also limit the amount of workers possibly involved in such an endeavour to the amount of other workers that "subscribe" to such a service. However the problem here is that if all "content" is made in advance because there aren't market mechanisms then you're still not addressing the problem of the SNLT of an digitally produced image being 0, at which point even if the average workweek was X hours, you would need at least Y workers to contribute in order to just fund Z "Sex Workers" at an equitable rate. This doesn't seem like a kind of labour that seems "Socially neccessary" and de facto requires Intellectual Property restrictions to be viable in my view, otherwise it's just workers donating to people who are essentially parasites. Once the photograph has been taken, or the video made, there is no more labour to be performed to be received in kind. At best this seems like it would be supplementary voluntary work where performers would be renumerated just for the time spend producing content through a crowdfunding mechanism.

I'm interested in getting into the weeds of this topic even though it's a bit abstracted.

Elijah Cox
Elijah Cox

I guess my point is, if it's not sustainable because it imbalances accounting mechanisms due to there being virtually 0 SNLT involved in production + reproduction of digital content, it seems as though all "Sex Workers" who aren't providing person to person services would at worst, be forced to marketize themselves aggressively leading to a gigantic advertising apparatus just in order to gain as many "patrons" as possible, but at best, just be something that has no bearing on their ability to sustain themselves as they'd be performing productive or essential labour elsewhere in the economy which would more than cover their subsistence, at which point, having large logistical structures such as this for activities which are wholly voluntary seems rather inefficient.

Isaac Taylor
Isaac Taylor

Yeah dude real women's control over their own body is when market forces push her onto the street to get fucked by men they don't know under constant risk of violence. This isn't am inherently exploitative setup at all.

Logan Nguyen
Logan Nguyen

All wage-labor is commodification of one's body. It seems like you are just emotionally against prostitution.
Pro-prostitution is as illogical as anti-prostitution, since it treats prostitution as intrinsically different from other service-work.
Yes. Leaving something so important to the sexual free market is bourgeois.
Socialism isn't about serving your feelings by tyrannizing the worker, it's about freeing them.
Trading or "free exchange" or whatever is anti-socialist, that is why the whole nontransferable labour voucher meme even exists.
voluntary association of workers is anti-socialist
true socialism is someone like me telling the proletariat how to live their life
There are people who say something like that about interfering with the freedom of strike-breakers. And they are right, as long as you keep your analysis to one individual only, all else equal. Society is not a sum of individuals with an existence that could be understood as prior to it, and an individualist viewpoint leads to liberal idiocy, and it remains that even if you sprinkle some revolutionary words over this
I am precisely not using an individualist analysis, I am talking in terms of actions that affect all workers. How does systemically reducing employment options by criminalizing industries make workers less exploited? It doesn't even remove the industry, it just makes working in it even more dangerous.
Cockshott distinguishes between self-employed and not self employed, he literally says this at the end of the article:
He doesn't in the quote I posted.
We should enforce laws to reduce the amount of prostitutes
Why?
They're not they are petite bourgeois if anything
Except the ones who are literally employed.
Drug dealers also provide a service, do you want to fight for the right of drug dealers to peddle heroine to teenagers?
No, instead I want resources to go to fix the reason why teenagers get addicted to heroin. The War on Drugs hasn't worked, it just increases violence and expanded the police state.
Why would you support services that are harmful to the working class.
Prove prostitution is harmful.
In the US for example the states that legalized marijuana saw an increase in the marijuana market.
How could the possibly measure the market before legalization?
Having sex with strangers is very unhealthy both mentally and physically.
So are many things. Are you going to threaten to cage people for all of them? Do you really want to trust the bourgeoise state with that power?

Daniel Gutierrez
Daniel Gutierrez

Pro-prostitution is as illogical as anti-prostitution, since it treats prostitution as intrinsically different from other service-work.
what about heroin dealer service work?

James Hernandez
James Hernandez

Socialism isn't about serving your feelings by tyrannizing the worker, it's about freeing them..
I agree. Serving feelings is legalizing prostitution. Serving the working class is struggling against cancerous element i.e. prostitution

Ryder Rivera
Ryder Rivera

bro but it's their choice though xD

Levi Sanchez
Levi Sanchez

No, instead I want resources to go to fix the reason why teenagers get addicted to heroin. The War on Drugs hasn't worked, it just increases violence and expanded the police state.
But yet you don't want to apply the same logic to prostitution.

Prove prostitution is harmful.
See Lenin

How could the possibly measure the market before legalization?
Asking people.

So are many things. Are you going to threaten to cage people for all of them? Do you really want to trust the bourgeoise state with that power?
Yes

Attached: thot-patrol.jpg (119.83 KB, 923x785)

Ryan Sanchez
Ryan Sanchez

what about heroin dealer service work?
a college girl blowing you in a brothel downtown is equivalent to getting hooked on smack until you die of an overdose
"Cancerous element" isn't a materialist term. All you're saying is "I don't like this therefor banning it is serving socialism"
But yet you don't want to apply the same logic to prostitution.
Give some evidence that paying someone to fuck is the same as becoming an addict.
See Lenin
Appeals to authority aren't cogent arguments.
Asking people.
Source?
Yes
So you trust the capitalist state to grow their reach and number of guns in order to protect the worker from themself?

Blake Lewis
Blake Lewis

what about heroin dealer service work?
a college girl blowing you in a brothel downtown is equivalent to getting hooked on smack until you die of an overdose
yet you have no counter.

service jobs are proletarian!!1
"what about jobs that are harmful to society"
*crickets*

"Cancerous element" isn't a materialist term.
Materialist terms now? Please point me to the list of approved terms.

All you're saying is "I don't like this therefor banning it is serving socialism"
This is an obvious strawman

Give some evidence that paying someone to fuck is the same as becoming an addict.
Sex addiction :^)

Appeals to authority aren't cogent arguments.
I don't have to reinvent the wheel. Lenin said it best and has the best Communist take on prostitution.

Source?
cdc.gov/marijuana/data-statistics.htm

So you trust the capitalist state to grow their reach and number of guns in order to protect the worker from themself?
The real question is. Is the current government capable of suppressing prostitution?
The answer is yes.

Jacob Long
Jacob Long

yet you have no counter.
It's not my job to prove a negative.
"what about jobs that are harmful to society"
Prove prostitution is inherently harmful to society.
Materialist terms now? Please point me to the list of approved terms.
Terms that actually point to something that can be objectively observed.
This is an obvious strawman
The argument is already made of straw.
Sex addiction
Better ban all sex then :^)
Lenin said it best and has the best Communist take on prostitution.
Which is?
cdc.gov/marijuana/data-statistics.htm
I don't see the statistics pointing to what you're saying.
The real question is. Is the current government capable of suppressing prostitution?
It already tries to. Prostitution still exists and its criminal nature unnecessarily makes the lives of prostitutes more dangerous and more capable of being exploited.

Grayson Mitchell
Grayson Mitchell

You can't fix the issue of prostitution if your government doesn't even claim it exists and outlaws it to keep the common man from noticing how much of a problem it is.

Asher Perry
Asher Perry

Shut the fuck up Satan you retard. The problem isn't the government outlawing it, it's the government outlawing it but then not taking the necessary steps to really crack down on it, just like with drugs.

Sentence all prostitutes to mandatory rehab. If they continue to peddle their wares even after being offered guaranteed employment in a productive field like IDK manning a government call center or building affordable housing or installing renewable energy sources or whatever the fuck needs to be done, just strip them of their citizenship and deport them to some cucked socdem country where they can whore themselves out like Sweden.

Attached: !.png (204.18 KB, 744x843)

Samuel Jones
Samuel Jones

Oh I forgot about the punishment for Johns. Death penalty, no exceptions.

Colton Diaz
Colton Diaz

These

Chase Barnes
Chase Barnes

I think of it a lot like homelessness. In many cases, homeless people are treated like second-class citizens and being homeless is pretty much illegal. What does law enforcement do to homeless people? They force them to get out-of-sight so that nobody has to look at what their capitalist society has created. Outlawing homelessness and outlawing prostitution only leads to people being unaware about the conditions that people are living in and the effects of those conditions on their life.

Lucas Campbell
Lucas Campbell

I'm not asking for some retarded liberal law enforcement where cops just keep stuff "out of sight out of mind" like they have been for the past however many centuries.

I'm suggesting a proactive policy to kill off all johns/buyers, to offer rehab and alternative employment to all prostitutes, and to truly allow them to make the choice between contributing to society or sticking with what they have and being deported.

IF the liberal notion that "omg all prostitutes don't want to prostitute and they're actually stuck there because they're poor and exploited" is true then rehabilitation and a guaranteed job placement with a living wage will fix it.

IF, on the other hand, that opposite is true, that is, that a significant number of prostitutes actually like their work and like being a parasite contributing nothing to society because they don't want to work a real job, then they can be deported for all I care to go fuck up or increase the moral degradation of some other society.

I have sympathy for the homeless. I do not have sympathy for those who decide to make society even shittier by offering services which directly lead to repeated abortions, the breakup of relationships and marriages, the increase of sexual diseases, etc.

Attached: getupagainstthewall.png (345.4 KB, 1000x1000)

Evan Morris
Evan Morris

It's not my job to prove a negative.
You're deflecting now.

Prove prostitution is inherently harmful to society.
Read Lenin

Terms that actually point to something that can be objectively observed.
You're just calling what you don't like "not materialist" at this point

The argument is already made of straw.
This is just more deflecting

Which is?
See

cdc.gov/marijuana/data-statistics.htm
I don't see the statistics pointing to what you're saying.

Are you pretending to be retarded now?

It already tries to. Prostitution still exists and its criminal nature unnecessarily makes the lives of prostitutes more dangerous and more capable of being exploited
Good

Samuel Cruz
Samuel Cruz

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?

That is correct. We should also allow kids back in mines to help poor families.
Just to make sure, signing up to shoot sandniggers and help Lockheed Martin chase those profits is cool too, right? Because it's better than the alternative.

Julian Rogers
Julian Rogers

Pro-prostitution is as illogical as anti-prostitution, since it treats prostitution as intrinsically different from other service-work.
I am going to disagree with this. If we are going to claim that waged labor under duress of the market forces that dominate your life is tantamount to enslavement, then applying the same process to prostitution equates it to rape and money-slavery at the same time. Prosecuting people who solicit prostitutes is an anti-prostitution measure, and one that should largely be supported.

Tyler Morgan
Tyler Morgan

I do not have sympathy for those who decide to make society even shittier by offering services which directly lead to repeated abortions, the breakup of relationships and marriages, the increase of sexual diseases, etc.
Why are you defending casual sex havers? The transfer of money/goods is an arbitrary distinction, all the negatives you listed apply to all kinds of non-monogamous sexual degenerates, if not more so because the rate of condom usage i a lot lower there. They should be shot too.

Isaiah Diaz
Isaiah Diaz

It really is pathetic how "sex work" has been lionized by the Chapocel set, especially when prostitution was so vociferously denounced by every communist and feminist in history up until the Twitter age.

Not that anybody here needs to be reminded of it necessarily, but "leftists" who are oddly fixated upon sex-positivity are wolves in sheep's clothing. 9 out of 10 times they are sad lonely men using a movement as an excuse to harass people.

Cooper Russell
Cooper Russell

Why are you defending casual sex havers?
why not?

Dylan Stewart
Dylan Stewart

We should also allow kids back in mines to help poor families.
Taking kids out of the workforce is good for average wages because the same amount of work has to be done by fewer people. Children are dependents, while women by and large are not. Taking those women out of the workforce won't increase their provider's pay since they don't have one. It will just reduce their purchasing power, unlike ending child labor.
Just to make sure, signing up to shoot sandniggers and help Lockheed Martin chase those profits is cool too, right? Because it's better than the alternative.
How is higher profits a preferable alternative? Poor people having some work they can do rather than no work means they at least have some money to live. Even if prostitution is illegal they do it anyway (not so with child labor, at least not in the sense you're talking about). Making it legal means you can make it safer. It's like abortion in that respect. Even if you think it's gross because you're a faggot you should still support legalization in principle since it happens anyway and when it's legal it's safer.

Brayden Bell
Brayden Bell

there's no "socialist stance" on prostitution, as it's shit that happen only in a capitalist society
the fact that socialist are often progressist who wants better condition for women and prostitute (through opposite way under capitalism depending on the person) doesn't change shit

Christian Lopez
Christian Lopez

Why are you defending casual sex havers?

Please explain how you made that massive leap of logic. I only focused on prostitution specifically because that's the topic in discussion. I'm all in favor of adulterers being punished as well.

Daniel Ward
Daniel Ward

Hentai is socialist and the proper answer to deal with the demand of pornography.

Attached: 0001.jpg (135.8 KB, 849x1200)

Josiah Hernandez
Josiah Hernandez

Prostitution happens in every mode of production.

David King
David King

If someone has to dig beyond the end of the barrel to make ends meet, the state shouldn't legitimize it and help him because Joe the Pimp might provide some tax money. It's another retarded bandage only supported by woketards because forest/trees.

it happens anyway
they do it anyway
leftist theory just got DESTROYED I guess

Easton Butler
Easton Butler

tfw you will never have a cute yandere moth-girl wife

Attached: c95ba4a28628bf64b4bcb7abca8196aa2f87ee5548e3b8728414b299a7df4022.jpg (45.86 KB, 600x600)

Levi Martinez
Levi Martinez

tfw you will never have a wife
why even live

Jose Ross
Jose Ross

If it's cooperative brothels I don't see how that would be inherently a problem. If you make more and more jobs become just basic human functions it will lead to a shift against the idea that money is needed in society.

Christopher Long
Christopher Long

muh coops
Small bidness and private enterprise necessitates money(instead of labour vouchers) to function, which creates pressure to restore capitalism.

David Lopez
David Lopez

If it's cooperative brothels
sounds like capitalism