"anarchist think tank and media center" claims Cockshott is a reactionary

It's not that it's bad and scary but it's literally turning yourself into a commodity, there should be no need for anyone to do that in socialism.
If you really want to fuck a bunch of people or film your junk you can do that in your free time as a hobby.

You want to force women at gunpoint to stop doing sex work and throw them in prisons for camwhoring? That sounds more like a "What the fuck" position.

We want to remove the capitalist incentives and injustices that force women to do sex work against their will. If they do it completely of their own volition, where's the fucking problem lmao

You could apply this to anybody whose job is a performing some kind of service using their body, like an actor, athlete, bouncer, etc.

It sounds a lot like neoclassical economists getting mad when human behavior doesn't match the economic theory.
This. People who do sex work out of desperation are picking a preference. Trying to stop them just makes their lives harder. If you get rid of the conditions that push them to do that out of desperation, the only people who do sex work will be willing, and then the only justification to stop them is either social conservatism or "camwhores are petty bourgeois." The anti-sex-worker stance is untenable. Yes, quasi-involuntary sex work is bad (you still have a choice to not have that income, but you're strongly incentivized to get the income), but if someone wants to be a professional at making people cum, who gives a shit? It's like being a professional barber. It's not a need per se, but it's better to take care of it, and there's skill involved so an expert could do it better than an amateur.
There is the argument of camwhores being petty bourgeois, but they usually also do backend production for videos/streaming, which is way more work than it looks like. The problem here IMO is looking at it as renting your sexuality rather than as producing videography that happens to be erotic.

The argument against prostitution is to avoid commodifying human bodies and intimacy. There is however nothing wrong with a informal gift economy where sexual favours are bartered for gifts. It's not about social conservatism it's about the economic mechanisms meant for efficiently managing productive forces, and this shouldn't invade the personal realm of people, at least not if we want to have a non alienated society.
prostitution in a market economy makes the banks the pimp
prostitution in a planed economy makes the planning system the pimp.
Socialist economies are planed economies, could you imagine having a ministry for brothels, having political debates of how much labour power should be diverted for this, how the "output" is distributed. Consider that one labour hour is one labour hour… So no heigh-end prostitute incomes.

There always is this the suspicion where superficial social causes are used to shoehorn market economics in to socialism.

The abolition of intellectual property requires the abolition of camwhoring as well. Sorry madam but you're coming with the gulag with me

Attached: stalin with no hair.jpg (640x639, 36.56K)

...

I'm opposed to intellectual property too. I don't see how that necessitates punishing people for being naked in front of cams.

I'm not saying sex should be a commodity, you retard. I'm saying you shouldn't force people at gunpoint to not exchange sex.
Decommodifying housing, healthcare and water isn't done by forcing people not to engage in exchange, it's done by abolishing private property and thus giving everyone access to these resources based on need.

Isn't this an oxymoron? Like a big one.

C4SS are just bleeding-heart ancaps

not really.
there are markets, but no private property.
people only own what they use, so collectively operated ventures (like factories) are under collective ownership of the workers.
It keeps market exchange mechanisms, but prevents accumulation of capital and ensures workplace democracy.

Yeah, in a real world scenario it's very unlikely that you would actually put Belle Delphine against the wall because she couldn't help but be a camwhore or whatever. But you would have to be openly hostile to people prohibiting the reproduction of goods in unlimited supply via artificially limiting this supply and charging rent for their usage, which is what camwhores generally do to make a living. In this sense Chaturbate-esque streams that make dosh via voluntary donations are a gray area, tho.

heheheheheheheh read Poverty of Philosophy nigga

That’s what a commodity is, a good or service produced for the purpose for exchanging it. If you sell sex (or “exchange” for it), you are engaged in commodity production through the commodification of sex.
No, that is precisely how you do it.

I have only seen this argument come from the most disabled of tankies. At no point did I notice anyone bring up this "liquidating brothels by force" scenario that you seem to be clinging to. Why do we need to constantly make the discussion on the relationship between the Communist movement and prostitutes a argument between the two poles of "beng a sex slave is progressive lmao!" and "prostitutes are lumpen proletariat that should be gulaged lmao!".

This, you can fully adopt the program get set out in towards a new socialism without any of the dumb boomer social attitudes

sure, stuff like private no-sharing snapchats would obviously be out the window, or have to be based on trust instead of IP law.
Donation-based camwhoring would be an option.

Again, I'm not saying that there is a right to cmawhore, and if Belle Delphine goes out of business due to socialist property law, so be it. I simply don't think you should stop people from camwhoring with force.

I know what a commodity is you autismo. Read the fucking post again.

you're LARPing as supreme leader while my USSR born and raised commie parents were listening to under the counter Pink Floyd records in 70s Russia

Sure, I'm in favor of nuanced discussion and open to criticisms of sex work (I'm critical myself).
Hard to call it a strawman though when the comment directly above yours is one of those most disabled of tankies.

I didn't say anything about a market, although markets are not inherently capitalist. You could have sex be planned as a service. The state socialist objection to this is based on the notion that economic planning is done centrally. To an anarchist, there's nothing objectionable about a sex worker choosing to do sex work for those who "need" it and being credited for the labor (if law of value hasn't been abolished). If the planning for such a service is not centralized, the "commodification" question is moot. If anything this leads to a critique of central planning or state planning as opposed to decentralized planning. It's not hard to envision a situation where planning happens in different ways for different things. Just because industrial manufacturing and the like is managed by a state doesn't mean you couldn't have brothels structured like co-operatives that award labor vouchers by the state but the sessions are planned by the workers.

If that's the argument then it's too late for capitalism, and in socialism where would the commodity be? The point is to abolish commodity production, isn't it? Services (including sex work) are already arguably not the same as commodities, since instead of properly entering a market the "product" is consumed as it is being produced. Rather than a good that is produced with the presumption that a certain quantity can be sold, services are produced to order, i.e. for direct use. The difference in a socialist economy would simply be that they are compensated in labor vouchers or something similar (if compensation is a factor). The fact that there are massive numbers of people posting nude self-photography or pornography online for free, I would argue that this industry is already in the process of communization.

Where is the line between "the personal realm of people" and everything else? If I do something as a hobby, it's personal, but if I get paid for it then it's my job. What makes sex different other than a particular intangible value placed on sex?

I would replace banks with market forces but ok.
And what if the prostitutes are themselves doing the planning? This is again a problem with state socialism, the notion that planning must be alienated from the workers. This is why it's important to have people like Wolff talking about the internal structure of the production process and how planning can take place at that level.

Yes. I don't see the objection here beyond "ew gross." It would make sense for there to be some body that keeps track of sexual needs same as any other (often more ethereal) needs. If there isn't enough sex work relative to demand you could encourage people to get into having sex for a career. Behind these kinds of worries always seem to be this idea that people (women) don't like the idea of having sex, or having sex to get something. It's a common thing in (unhealthy) relationships, and if that kind of behavior was instead channeled into work it would remove the "exchange" aspect of sex from romantic relationships where it really doesn't belong. In socialism you'd presumably have a robust social safety net, so there'd be little pressure to engage in sex work you weren't comfortable with.
It's only a problem if you give the actual power to decide to the ministry and not the workers. It's funny how these concerns about autonomy only seem to apply with something like sex work and not any other labor.

Marx recognizes the problem with this. See Critique of the Gotha Programme:

You said that you somehow wanted "decommodification" without abolition of exchange, which is a contradiction.
Cockshott's whole thing is computers organizing the production and distribution of goods and services, which would, in fact, be better than markets in every conceivable way.

Also you're "USSR born and raised commie parents" had shit taste.

Abolition of exchange doesn't necessarily mean forcing people to not engage in exchange. In fact, that's the least efficient and effective way to stop people from trading goods.
The far better method is to provide these goods to them in a better way than through market exchange, so commodity exchange stops being a necessity. Cybernetic planning, like Cockshott suggests, is one method to accomplish that.
Abolition of exchange doesn't automatically mean "forcing people not to trade".

sex work is based though
how else are young people gonna get money to get expensive goods?

What do you guys think of Charles Fourier's idea about prostitution under socialism? From what I understand the idea is that benevolant bands of prostitutes would service those who can't make it in the current sexual market and resocialize them. Maybe that's the solution.

Markets will procedurally generate capitalism, socialism has to seek to abolish money market schemes.youtube.com/watch?v=BQrEEdy_uwM
Anarchism has a theoretical flaw, namely it lacks the mathematical foundation for a decentralised system, as it currently stands all conceptions of decentralised systems will necessarily centralise, while there might be a solution to this, it is currently unknown. Anarchism would economically be a sophisticated barter system.

The objection to prostitution is that is commodifying the bodies of people, it is not a sex service, it's not about the act stimulating certain body-parts, it's far more brutal way of dehumanizing people that in a metaphorical sense is like a butcher that converts animals into different categories of meat products.
The next objection is the alienation of human intimacy in by economizing it, we do want to have a central planer that organizes the productive forces of societies in the most efficient way possible, because that still is a existential question. However we do not want to optimize and improve efficiency for intimate human relation, that would cause the alienation from the self. You speak the language of emancipation yet argue in the same direction as conservatives who seek to sell/buy women, with the notable difference that you only want to do it on a temporary basis rather than a permanent basis.

Nearly everything on the internet is platform capitalism, this is not communisation, this is primitive accumulation where data about people is like a resource that is being mined.
lol the insensible pimp!?
States are the result of the technological inability to produce mobility of sufficient quality and scale for people to stop organizing in territorial units.
The central planner performs the function of decentralizing wealth, Authority is used to enforce democratic decisions. Also Wolff argues for police enforced prohibition prostitution, al be it the kind that criminalizes the demand.
Like I said before there is nothing wrong with bartering sexual favours for material gains in a informal gift economy.

You are contradicting yourself on the point of wanting to both "encourage" the supply of prostitutes while at the same time wanting to have no pressure to engage in prostitution.
No there is definitely not going to be any deviation from using labour time as a hard measurement, a hour of time is an hour of time, the differences in income will have to be facilitated by taxation and redistribution, preferably with a democratic mandate. Socialist economies cannot have mystification of relations of the type of having different time values.
For once it'n not productive and as far as other objection go look the 2 paragraph above.

That is pure utopianism. There should be no need or reliance on benevolence in general, it's like trying to solve poverty through private charity.

Sex “work” produces no value, thus it is not real work.

Attached: LeninHeWhoDoesNotWorlShallNotEat.jpg (850x400, 44.91K)

woah, I guess therapists and psychiatrists don't do any real work as well then.
I guess you must live in a Soviet propaganda film then, where everyone is a stoic factory worker who does his work with machine-like discipline and endurance and has no sex drive.

1) it absolutely does if it's not… "freelance"
2) no work will produce value in socialism. that's the whole point

I always wondered what sex culture looked like in USSR

What a way to start an article.

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1864/economic/ch02b.htm

I do. You are blinded by your position of privilege where it does not even enter your mind that some do not even have intimate relations because they are so unequally distributed.
for

Well in Fourier's vision it was sexual charity, but a state run firm dedicated to the service might work

Lol @ you disingenuous liberal cunt.

Sex slavery is not voluntary sex work by definition. You wouldn't have to force women not to do it if they had the option.

I was expressly talking about voluntary, consentual sex work, and that forcefully punishing it is the wrong way.

Tankism is right wing to us so its accurate.

Pick 1

Nazism is left wing to centrist so it's accurate.

COCKSHOTT IS NAZBOL

Attached: 19af53ef00e88037fde1294b1a9eb223-imagepng.png (365x423, 52.68K)

...

yes

I don't get where this idea came from where to be a socialist you have to stop being critical of social phenomenon. Like it's one thing to discriminate, but it's something else entirely to just criticize. I thought marxism was about criticizing everything?

great analysis there dipshit

Anarchist have think tanks?

w*Sternoids were a mistake

Sex is normally free, you donut.

Where's my free sex?

just run "yum install sex"
If you get an insufficient permissions message, ask your sysadmin.

t. retart

Fuck off, sex workers not being sent into steel mills weakens the socialist state.

run "sudo pacman -S sex" then map "exec sex" to $mod+shift+S so you can have sex whenever you want
i use arch btw

this was the most confusing part to me as well

Actually git clone or rsync it and make make install so you have the source code to configure any sex you want in the main.c file. Or "emerge sex" with savedconfig and kink use flag.
I've heard giving rim job while fucking vagina or kissing while boobjob is pretty kinky.

C4SS aren't anarcho-communists. They also want the market to remain.

Attached: Libertarias 1996.webm (656x304, 7.53M)

Attached: 575-5755124_post-capitalist-pig-porky-png.jpg (320x327, 45.75K)

Attached: Brainlit2.jpg (645x729, 39.97K)

They would label him as an evil reactionary tankie regardless of that.

Attached: cockshott on muh gorillions.png (879x454 193.35 KB, 44.94K)

Legit, though, it’s like charging money for air. It’s something that is normally free if you want to do it.

...

Lmao

tfw you will never be crafting a sex in the femderation of femspiring self-fempowered femtrepreneurs
🥺🔫

Can anyone name one thing that Cockshott has done wrong?

he should shut up about gender because its irrelecvant

C4SS is a pariah.
No Left Anarchist really takes them seriously.
They are at best there to convert An"Caps" and at worst they function to water down syndicalism into mutualism.
Hecc C4SS

Attached: anarcho liberalism.webm (1280x720, 7.64M)

Anarchists are retarded, more news at 11.

Also anyone calling cockshott a reactionary just because he is a terf is retarded in general. Just ignore his relatively unvoiced stances on trannies, damn.

He's not even a TERF, he;s just anti-idpol and he's objectively right about it. All that liberal shit is just taking away from the main issue - class struggle.

No he is (or was, idk) quite litterally a member of a terf group and went out of his way to promote anti-trans propaganda and shit.
Being actively anti-trans is just as much idpol as making everything about being trans.

...

He's said that it's retarded to have biological males sitting in a women's committee for abortion. That's not IdPol nor is it "going out of his way".

The fact that this is on their website tells you all you need to know about them.
store.c4ss.org/index.php/product/markets-not-capitalism/

Attached: Markets-Not-Capitalism-cover.png (413x618, 386.56K)

[Laughs in Kropotkin]

[Gags in Maletesta]

No.

Fuck off.

Imagine my shock.

I'm sure the author must lurks here or Zig Forums or /anarcho/.

I think that's unlikely. But he's certainly on twitter and also spams his article on reddit.

I decided to check out some of the articles on gender they're bitching about and the first one I looked at is nigh incomprehensible . Which is bizzare, since usually Cockshott is so straight forward
paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2017/08/26/the-desire-for-a-convergence-of-heterosexuality/

Nevermind, that explains it

Well he's a homophobe and a transphobe, but that's just how all typical Marxist-Leninists are

Oh no, the horror

Attached: 1522125252574.gif (270x205, 3.33M)

I'm pretty sure c4ss is just the left-wing branch of Koch bros funded libertarian think tanks

Agorism is pretty much Von Mises with Red on it

Cockshott is a social reactionary and the article is right.

Though fuck prostitution. Socialism will make sex work obsolete.

Dumbfuck new converts from Zig Forums seem to have this idea in their head that the Paul Cockshott support was unironic.
He's a dumbass sperg who says dumbass sperg shit. That's why people "ignored" his homophobia. He was a meme.
This article seems to miss that, as do the people in this thread.

Basically his entire workbase is just an Econ and CS major reinventing existing theory and calling it new CS-major sounding shit.

This article offers no actual critiques of his position and instead just says shit like "lol paul is stupid". It's not wrong, but it's not really useful.

Let's take a look at this line from Paul: "the interests of gays tend to be aligned with that of the propertied classes"

Meanwhile a shitload of homeless youths are gay; after controlling for a number of factors associated with poverty, rates for Gay & Bi adults are higher than for heterosexual adults (williams institute), being the victim of a crime tied to poverty is much higher if you're LGBT in poverty and not cis-het in poverty, etc.

This reminds me of when /g/ unironically started thinking Stallman was a god, then when /g/ unironically started thinking Terry wasn't a dumbfuck retard.

hi c4ss

how will i get sex under socialism

ok

No, Cockshott is the new Marx and every writing of his contains value.

By dating people.

Why would they do that under socialism if they don't do it under capitalism?