The class nature of prostitution, massage therapists and similar.

[yuon]

This thread was originally going to be solely on the class nature of prostitutes, and which class (economic, Marxian or other) prostitutes would/could fit into. However, after doing a quick search, I came across posts (below) making the point that the actual work of a prostitute isn't much different to that of masseur. So, the thread just got a little broader.

This isn't a thread about whether anything is moral/immoral, illegal/legal, should be illegal/legal or similar, merely class.

Now, my brief thoughts on the matter suggest to me that prostitutes and massage therapists could be some sort of "petit-bourgeois". They "own" the means of making money (their own body and skills). However, they may well have to pay others to act as a contact (an agency) or for a room and a bouncer.

They make money by using their own body and skills. Isn't that everyone? So, I guess I answered my own question.

For the sake of completeness, here are some quotes on the matter (which helped me make up my mind):
http://www.revleft.com/vb/prostitution-t15867/index.html?t=15867


In a real communist society, of course, there is no money, no commodity exchange, and hence no economic motive for prostitution.

It can only exist in a class society.

All forms of wage-slavery are degrading...there's nothing "special" about prostitution in that regard.

Whenever we sell our labor-power, we are all "hos". Yes, that's a shameful thing to be...and is why Marx called shame "a revolutionary emotion".

It serves only the interests of the ruling class for workers to "look down" on other workers or adopt an attitude of "moral superiority" to other workers.

We're all in the same boat.

What is the "great crime"? In bourgeois society, everything is for sale. Why single out prostitutes or pimps?

Everyone "sacrifices their dignity" if they are wage-slaves.

In fact, only the self-employed individual--including prostitutes who work without pimps or madams--can claim even a semblance of "dignity" in monopoly capitalism.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/prostitution-and-virginity-t45870/index.html?t=45870

all labor is exploitive, thats the way that capitalism works. but theres nothing "specially" exploitive about the sex industry.

i mean whats really the difference between stroking a dudes back for money (massage "therapist") and stroking his cock for money (whore)?

Besides, if a girl's working independently (not contracting with an agency), she effectively "runs her own business" and "owns the means of production". That would make her, in Marxist terms, a "petty bourgeois" and hence, while not particularly economically powerful, hardly among capitalism's worst victims.


Are escorts exploited by capitalism? Of course. But if you don't utilize their services, they will nonetheless still be exploited. That's just the way that capitalism works; unless you're born wealthy, you've pretty much got to accept exploitation to get by.

Obviously, we should continue to fight against the institutions of slavery and oppression and encourage working-class organization and unity as much as possible. But escorts still need to make a living; and a blanket condemnation of their occupation is pure conservative moralism, nothing more.

There is nothing inherently wrong about having sex for a living; the only "exploitative" relationship that exists here is between the escort and her boss. The same exploitative relationship, incidently, that exists with every other working-class job.

If you want to critisize the way that the sex industry is currently run or argue for escort unionization, that's one thing; but to imply that all sex work is "nescessarily" "wrong" is buying into puritanical sexual mores and has nothing to do with progressive politics.

sucking a dude off is a service just like any other capitalist service. the guy gets something out of it (pleasure) and the worker gets paid. what the fucks the difference between stroking a back (massage) and stroking a cock (whore)?

Prostitution, when done by an independent contractor, or when done in a decriminalized, regulated and unionized environment, is one of the LEAST exploitative labor relationships under capitalism. What other jobs to people make $200/hour* for their labor power?

It's when pimps come into the picture that it's exploitative. The only reason pimps exist is because prositution is criminalized.

In any case, I'd say materially, if we were to remove the social and legal implications, that a prostitute is akin to a restaurant worker. Both provide a non-essential "luxury" service for a fee.

Were it not for the normative social/cultural considerations and the law crafted around them, I should see no difference in having sex with a prostitute and dining at a restaurant.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/whore-revolution-resisting-t101583/index.html?t=101583

OK, but more to the point, prostitutes aren't selling their bodies. They are hiring them out for a night (or a few hours, whatever). They are, as I said above, like hairdressers or masseurs. They sell a service for a time, they don't sell their body, because they continue to have control over their body at the end of the time.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Prostitutes are members of the proletariat in my mind. Their own bodies are commodified for the sake of the buyer whom the prostitutes sell their labour to.

[fidzboi]

Now, my brief thoughts on the matter suggest to me that prostitutes and massage therapists could be some sort of "petit-bourgeois". They "own" the means of making money (their own body and skills). However, they may well have to pay others to act as a contact (an agency) or for a room and a bouncer.

I think you're mistakenly conflating two different economic concepts here. The brothel itself, its beds, lotions and condoms, are 'the means of making money', the means of production. The prostitute simply sells his or her labour power, which when coupled with the means of production produces a commodity: sexual intercourse for a fee, prostitution.

The obvious importance of labour to this commodity, can lead to the mistaken view that the labour itself is the commodity. But prostitution as a commodity is more than just the worker's labour, it is the combination of said labour power with the means of production. And if you subtract the means of production from the equation, if you remove the brothel, you simply have sexual intercourse which in and of itself is not a commodity.

This may sound a bit 'out there', but I think it is important to distinguish between the simple act of sexual intercourse and the commodity that is prostitution. Making the former into the latter requires productive means, the act of sexual intercourse must undergo qualitative and quantitative changes in order to become 'prostitution'.

Given this, it is therefore possible to distinguish between different sections of the sexual industry. You have those that own the means of production and utilise wage labour to produce a commodity, the bourgeoisie brothel owner; you have those that own both the means of production and sell their labour power, commonly the self-employed or contracted petty-bourgeoisie escort; and then you have those that do not own the means but simply sell their labour, the sex worker.

Meaning that you cannot simply lump all sexual workers into one class, with the doing of so leading to the difference between the self-employed escort and sexual worker being overlooked. I can't really be bothered to go into the details, indeed I'm sure everyone already knows them, but suffice to say the working conditions of a 'street corner hooker' and a 'high class escort' are significantly different, and this directly stems from their differing relationship to the productive process.

Additionally, whether and how an industry organises is usually a good litmus test of the class nature of the people in that industry. And over the last decade we've seen a lot of examples of sexual workers' organising in unions, which would indicate they share the same antagonistic relationship with capital that other members of the working class have.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Legal prostitution is a very proletarian job. Illegal prostitution is a "proper lumpenproletarian" job, whereby "proper lumpenproletarian" (such as criminal work) doesn't include pimps (lumpenbourgeoisie) or bums (mere lumpen).

Massage therapists, assuming they don't own their own businesses, are proletarians.

[New Tet]

I take a somewhat moralistic approach to this issue: I condemn and oppose capitalism for turning the work of the laborer into an act of physical and psychological subjection at the service of profiteers.

Isn't that what people do each other when one pays the other for an experience that ought to occur among equal partners?

Far from being an exclusively proletarian phenomenon, prostitution is the eternal circumstantial condition of the poor and the occasional, selective folly of the rich.

[New Tet]

Has anyone here actually consorted with a prostitute or gone to a massage parlor to have his pecker polished?

I direct this question to the male members here (ha!) and not to the females since my Hispanic machismo does not allow me to imagine that any self-respecting working class woman would actually pay to be pleasured.

[YKTMX]

Legal prostitution is a very proletarian job. Illegal prostitution is a "proper lumpenproletarian" job, whereby "proper lumpenproletarian" (such as criminal work) doesn't include pimps (lumpenbourgeoisie) or bums (mere lumpen).

Massage therapists, assuming they don't own their own businesses, are proletarians.


This is right.

The legal status of the occupation is important in determining its class nature.

[cenv]

Prostitutes are in essence workers.

And workers are in essence prostitutes.

As Fredy Perlman says in The Reproduction of Daily Life, capitalism is "characterized by daily universal prostitution."

[ls]

This is right.

The legal status of the occupation is important in determining its class nature.

Ah right, so illegal immigrant workers are also lumpenproletarians then? Good to know. :rolleyes:

[Plagueround]

Ah right, so illegal immigrant workers are also lumpenproletarians then? Good to know. :rolleyes:

While I don't necessarily agree with his analysis, he's talking about the legal status of the job, not the legal status of the worker.

[Die Neue Zeit]

This is right.

The legal status of the occupation is important in determining its class nature.

It goes right back to my own take on class, based on Marx's own linear approach in Capital:

1) Relationship to the legal wage labour system (inside, like proles and even bourgeoisie, or outside)
2) Relationship to the production of surplus value and advancing society's labour power and capabilities more generally (thus weeding out self-employed, cops, lawyers, lawyers, etc.)
3) Relationship to the MOP: significant-influence ownership, factual control, and societal scale (where the proles, coordinators, petit-bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie do their business)

[chegitz guevara]

It should be kept in mind that many prostitutes are slaves.

[tehpevis]

Prostitutes are seemingly both Worker and Capitalist at the same time. They make money off of their own body, but in this, they exploit themselves.

Really, Prostitution seems like one of the few trades which exist where work = money.

[yuon]

This is right.

The legal status of the occupation is important in determining its class nature.

Well, I think I quite disagree, at least if we are talking Marxian economic classes. It shouldn't really matter shit what the legal status of a "job" is, if it is exploitative, it is exploitative.

Especially as you can go from one country to another (or one state/county to another) and prostitution goes from being illegal to legal...

Take Nevada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Nevada), where according to Wikipedia, prostitution is illegal in Las Vegas (and in Clark County which contains its metropolitan area), but not illegal in neighbouring counties, hours away at most. So, when a prostitute crosses from one county to another they suddenly become lumpen-proletariat?

Or the Australian situation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Australia), where street prostitution is legal in NSW, illegal in Victoria, and all prostitution is illegal in South Australia. A person on the border of those three states better be sure which state they are in!


The same flaw applies to the managers and owners of escort agencies and brothels. They are certainly legal in some places, but not in others, in which case, where a person is a recognised (if not respected) business owner in one location, if they tried the same trick (pun not intended) in another location, they would be illegal.

I didn't realise it was so easy to change class! All I have to do is become a prostitute, and then cross a border! Class mobility has never been so easy.


Umm, and what about black market waiters or construction workers? Are they lumpen-proletariat as well? Simply because they are working an "illegal" job? (Illegal in the sense that they do not have permission, or having taxes taken out of their wages.)


@ chegitz guevara, that is not what I was talking about though.

@ fidzboi, yes, I didn't mean to lump all sex workers together. Instead, I was trying to lump masseurs, sex workers, waiters and other people who provide a service with their bodies (as opposed to producing a commodity), into a similar category. I realise that within this category there are further divisions.

[YKTMX]

Well, I think I quite disagree, at least if we are talking Marxian economic classes. It shouldn't really matter shit what the legal status of a "job" is, if it is exploitative, it is exploitative

Well, whether it "shouldn't" is another question. The only thing that really matters, in terms of analysis, is that it does. I notice you italicized the word economic in your post. What you seem to be suggesting by doing that is that the economy (the world of money, jobs, exploitation, wages etc.) can be seperated from the social and political conditions (the ideological situation, the legal and moral system etc.) within which it actually functions.

If I know anything about "Marxian economic analysis", it is that attempts like this to seperate the world of economic exploitation from the legal and political superstructure are a complete non-starter.

"Marxian economic analysis" is always-already a social and political analysis - that is the first claim of historical materialism.

In this sense, the whole "theme" of your prickly post - that juridicial determinations are superficial in comparison to the master narrative of a reified "economy" - is still-born.

[Dave B]

I think Karl generalised the idea in one of his early works in;

Private Property and Communism


as woman passes from marriage to general prostitution, [Prostitution is only a specific expression of the general prostitution of the labourer, and since it is a relationship in which falls not the prostitute alone, but also the one who prostitutes – and the latter’s abomination is still greater – the capitalist, etc., also comes under this head.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm)


He discussed it theoretically in "Theories of Surplus Value" or volume IV. But you have to be really careful reading this as it was a for my eyes only discussion documents in my opinion. Where he often summarises other peoples arguments to knock them down again and the two parts are often not clearly delineated. An extract is below. You might want to read the whole section;


[CHAPTER IV] Theories of Productive and Unproductive Labour




Thirdly. On the other hand: an entrepreneur of theatres, concerts, brothels, etc., buys the temporary disposal over the labour-power of the actors, musicians, prostitutes, etc.—in fact in a roundabout way that is only of formal economic interest; in its result the process is the same—he buys this so-called "unproductive labour", whose "services perish in the very instant of their performance and do not fix or realise themselves "any permanent" ("particular" is also used) "subject or vendible commodity" (apart from themselves).

The sale of these to the public provides him with wages and profit. And these services which he has thus bought enable him to buy them again; that is to say, they themselves renew the fund from which they are paid for. The same is true for example of the labour of clerks employed by a lawyer in his office—except for the fact that these services as a rule also embody themselves in very bulky "particular subjects" in the form of immense bundles of documents.


It is true that these services are paid for to the entrepreneur out of the revenue of the public. But it is no less true that this holds good of all products in so far as they enter into individual consumption. It is true that the country cannot export these services as such; but it can export those who perform the services. Thus France exports dancing masters, cooks, etc., and Germany schoolmasters. With the export of the dancing master, or the schoolmaster, however, his revenue is also exported, while the export of dancing shoes and books brings a return to the country.


If therefore on the one hand a part of the so-called unproductive labour embodies itself in material use-values which might just as well be commodities (vendible commodities), so on the other hand a part of the services in the strict sense which assume no objective form—which do not receive an existence as things separate from those performing the services, and do not enter into a commodity as a component part of its value—may be bought with capital (by the immediate purchaser of the labour), may replace their own wages and yield a profit for him. In short, the production of these services can be in part subsumed under capital, just as a part of the labour which embodies itself in useful things is bought directly by revenue and is not subsumed under capitalist production.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1863/theories-surplus-value/ch04.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1863/theories-surplus-value/ch04.htm)

[ls]

While I don't necessarily agree with his analysis, he's talking about the legal status of the job, not the legal status of the worker.

Jobs such as cockle picking are always illegal, most jobs illegal immigrants are given go far beyond normal 'work' that workers usually have in terms of legality.

[Jethro Tull]

Read Fortunati's The Arcane of Reproduction if you really want the answer.

[ls]

Would people in this thread consider people employed in cash-in-hand jobs as lumpenproletarian then? That is something I'd like to know.

[Pogue]

Obviously, they are workers who need to be unionised just like everyone else, as there are huge issues that need to be dealt with in the industry.

[h9socialist]

Perhaps the more constructive question might be: how much is prostitution a function of class society and alienation? I have the suspicion that less alienation in society would be accompanied by less prostitution -- understanding that class society fosters alienation, and loneliness is a function of alienation. Any thoughts?

[Pogue]

i had this argument very vocally the other night on the street

[h9socialist]

But ya had to pay anyway, huh?

[fidzboi]

I have the suspicion that less alienation in society would be accompanied by less prostitution

I agree with that, but I'd also expect to see a drastic increase in the number of sexual therapists and surrogates in a post-capitalist, culturally liberated society. The women (and men) who would do this, would likely have an interest in psychology, perhaps even the future equivalent of a degree in the subject, and therefore an educated approach to sexual work, but they would still be sex workers.

Sex as an occupation, in and of itself, isn't 'grubby' or 'dirty' or whatever someone may wish to call it, nor is it necessarily exploitative. And I suspect that many people in future societies will seek out the help of sexual therapists to deal with some of the many sexual paranoias that people exhibit.

[h9socialist]

I agree.

[RHIZOMES]

I agree with that, but I'd also expect to see a drastic increase in the number of sexual therapists and surrogates in a post-capitalist, culturally liberated society. The women (and men) who would do this, would likely have an interest in psychology, perhaps even the future equivalent of a degree in the subject, and therefore an educated approach to sexual work, but they would still be sex workers.

Sex as an occupation, in and of itself, isn't 'grubby' or 'dirty' or whatever someone may wish to call it, nor is it necessarily exploitative. And I suspect that many people in future societies will seek out the help of sexual therapists to deal with some of the many sexual paranoias that people exhibit.

Like actual therapists where part of their therapy is having sex with their client? :blink:

[fidzboi]

Yep.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_surrogate

[Pogue]

But ya had to pay anyway, huh?

what the fuck are you talking about?

[counterblast]

It should be kept in mind that many prostitutes are slaves.


Why should this be kept in mind?

Many farmers are slaves, too, but I've yet to meet a communist/anarchist who would discount the legitimacy of farm work for this reason.

[h9socialist]

Sorry Comrade Pogue -- I forgot that I wasn't doing "stand up" at the "Improv" -- no offense intended -- in comedy timing is everything.

[New Tet]

Obviously, they are workers who need to be unionised just like everyone else, as there are huge issues that need to be dealt with in the industry.

Quit trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Like wage slavery, sexual prostitution is incompatible with economic democracy. The commercialization of sex is a product of class divided society and sexual oppression and exploitation.

Prostitution, sexual intercourse in exchange for money, is degrading under any circumstance. Socialism will not attempt to legitimize it. Instead it will abolish the economic and social conditions that make it necessary or inevitable.

People must be liberated from the threat of poverty that makes them seek out humiliating occupations; they must be emancipated from their condition as slaves to a system that exploits them.

[Kayser_Soso]

Why should this be kept in mind?

Many farmers are slaves, too, but I've yet to meet a communist/anarchist who would discount the legitimacy of farm work for this reason.

A farmer is not forced to give up his or her body to the sexual desires of anyone who comes along.

[ls]

Quit trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Like wage slavery, sexual prostitution is incompatible with economic democracy. The commercialization of sex is a product of class divided society and sexual oppression and exploitation.

I highly doubt he was saying prostitution will exist post-socialism, which is seemingly what you're suggesting he meant.


Prostitution, sexual intercourse in exchange for money, is degrading under any circumstance.

I do agree with this, I think we should do our best to get prostitutes out of prostitution. Of course, this brings up the problem of the gangsters being kinda unhappy about this and what not, so I can't really blame comrades for being very hesitant at approaching the issue from this angle at all times, indeed it would seem sensible to try and work with an organisation to relocate the person in question and get them away from the gangsters.

[Janine Melnitz]

It goes right back to my own take on class, based on Marx's own linear approach in Capital:

1) Relationship to the legal wage labour system (inside, like proles and even bourgeoisie, or outside)
Could you expand on what the importance of this is?

Prostitution, sexual intercourse in exchange for money, is degrading under any circumstance. Socialism will not attempt to legitimize it. Instead it will abolish the economic and social conditions that make it necessary or inevitable.
"Legitimacy" is not the issue. STDs, PTSD and violent death are issues that could only be dealt with now, under these circumstances, via the organization of those vulnerable to these things. I actually agree that under capitalism prostitution is inevitable, and the result is a sector of workers who, without organization or protection, are being slaughtered.

[Kayser_Soso]

I do agree with this, I think we should do our best to get prostitutes out of prostitution. Of course, this brings up the problem of the gangsters being kinda unhappy about this and what not, so I can't really blame comrades for being very hesitant at approaching the issue from this angle at all times, indeed it would seem sensible to try and work with an organisation to relocate the person in question and get them away from the gangsters.

Don't worry, we Stalinist/Hoxhaists with our bureaucratic GULAG system and NKVD/Sigurimi will make short work of any gangsters. You left Communists and anarchists stick to throwing bricks through Starbucks windows. We got this.

Seriously though, if you want to help, read Viktor Malarek's book The Natashas, look up online organizations that help out in this sector, such as:

The Coalition Against Trafficking in Women (International)

La Strada (International, but mostly based around Eastern Europe)

Task Force on Human Trafficking (Israel)

Angel Coalition (Russia)

[ls]

Don't worry, we Stalinist/Hoxhaists with our bureaucratic GULAG system and NKVD/Sigurimi will make short work of any gangsters. You left Communists and anarchists stick to throwing bricks through Starbucks windows. We got this.

Or just murdering gangsters. Much more effective than the GULAG/NKVD seeing as they no longer exist and even when they did, well, a gangster like the kind we are talking about is not going to stop, we should make sure they can cause no more suffering like that (paralysis sounds like a good idea).


Seriously though, if you want to help, read Viktor Malarek's book The Natashas, look up online organizations that help out in this sector, such as:

The Coalition Against Trafficking in Women (International)

La Strada (International, but mostly based around Eastern Europe)

Task Force on Human Trafficking (Israel)

Angel Coalition (Russia)

They do not appear to have any sections over here, I will also check out that book. Mostly, prostitutes have appeared along my road roughly for a month each year, they get cleared off by constant police harrassment towards the end of the month however. I'm not really sure what's best to do, I suppose recommending them to the refuge system relocated in another place is the best idea, it's a tough situation really.

[Kayser_Soso]

Or just murdering gangsters. Much more effective than the GULAG/NKVD seeing as they no longer exist and even when they did, well, a gangster like the kind we are talking about is not going to stop, we should make sure they can cause no more suffering like that (paralysis sounds like a good idea).



They do not appear to have any sections over here, I will also check out that book. Mostly, prostitutes have appeared along my road roughly for a month each year, they get cleared off by constant police harrassment towards the end of the month however. I'm not really sure what's best to do, I suppose recommending them to the refuge system relocated in another place is the best idea, it's a tough situation really.

You might want to look into information on the Swedish law against prostitution, which is something to lobby for. Basically it amounts to this: Pimps are targeted, johns are targeted, but the girls themselves are not targeted. If they go the police, they are helped, with free medical/psychological care should they ask. The result has been devastation of the women trafficking trade in Sweden, as far as I have read.

[counterblast]

A farmer is not forced to give up his or her body to the sexual desires of anyone who comes along.

Neither is a sex worker.

You're confusing slavery with voluntary prostitution.

[Kayser_Soso]

Neither is a sex worker.

You're confusing slavery with voluntary prostitution.

"Sex work" leads to more trafficking. Wherever girls go for a higher price, and with restrictions(like the need for condoms), a market pops up for cheaper girls that will do anything(hint: because they are forced). This has been the case in the Netherlands, Germany, and pretty much every other country that legalizes prostitution. Coalition Against Trafficking in Women has plenty of material on this phenomenon.

People are not commodities, their bodies are not commodities.

[Pogue]

Quit trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Like wage slavery, sexual prostitution is incompatible with economic democracy. The commercialization of sex is a product of class divided society and sexual oppression and exploitation.

Prostitution, sexual intercourse in exchange for money, is degrading under any circumstance. Socialism will not attempt to legitimize it. Instead it will abolish the economic and social conditions that make it necessary or inevitable.

People must be liberated from the threat of poverty that makes them seek out humiliating occupations; they must be emancipated from their condition as slaves to a system that exploits them.

Wait

wut

So we're gonna try and deal with it but we can't unionise them?

Right, nice one :lol: Your a moron.

[Kayser_Soso]

Wait

wut

So we're gonna try and deal with it but we can't unionise them?

Right, nice one :lol: Your a moron.

Actually you would be the moron for assuming that prostitution is like any other job, and forgetting that this kind of argument has been put into practice, with no result.

Maybe witty rejoinders aren't your calling in life.

[fidzboi]

Prostitution, sexual intercourse in exchange for money, is degrading under any circumstance.

Really? Seems like you overlooked some of the more 'meaty' contributions at the beginning of this thread where posters tried to utilise Marxist tools to analyse prostitution, the conclusions are worth noting. Namely that 'prostitutes' are not one single entity, but rather a series of entities that can be placed in differing social classes.

This means that the 'degrading' practice of prostitution is not universal. The exploitation of 'street corner hookers' is not the same as that of 'high class escorts', there are fundamental differences relating to the division of labour. Of course that is working on the assumption that by 'degradation' you mean exploitation, but your choice of phrase is enlightening all the same.

Yours seems to be a moral analysis, 'prostitution ... is degrading under any circumstance'. To degrade is 'to lower in dignity or estimation; bring into contempt' (dictionary.com), so to be degraded, requires one to engage in a practice that is contemptible under current moral and cultural guidelines. In effect, prostitution, sex for money, is degrading because of cultural norms, not because of the act itself.

Exploitation is a more objective phenomena, and because of this it is this that radicals usually focus on. As I've said, the division of labour means there are divisions in exploitation, and this indicates that sex, as a profession, isn't always exploitative. In certain circumstances, yes, but not in all; and it is only degrading when cultural norms make that so.

Your inability to understand the difference between exploitation and degradation, is why you misunderstand this topic. And why your politics on this issue are misguided: 'Socialism will not attempt to legitimize it.'

The above statement ignores the historical specificity of current sex work, unable to understand it within the context of capitalist economics and class based production, and prone as you are to moralising, you are unable to see any 'legitimacy' in sex work. But sexual surrogacy and therapy are certainly not degrading to the women involved, and I'd argue that they will be important jobs in a post-capitalist society. Meaning, of course, that sexual work will not always be 'degrading', nor will it always be exploitative, and socialism will legitimise it.


Wherever girls go for a higher price, and with restrictions(like the need for condoms), a market pops up for cheaper girls that will do anything(hint: because they are forced).

You miss the point here, and that's that before regulation you have only one market, and that market is more like the latter 'market ... for cheaper girls' that you describe. Regulation stifles this market, splits it into two, from whence we get the dictum posited above.

Health and Safety law leads to a section of employers paying workers' 'off the books' to do risky jobs, as well as practices like hiring youngsters and immigrants who are likely less aware of their rights as workers'. But just because the existence of regulation leads to people trying to subvert that regulation, doesn't mean that that regulation shouldn't be in place.

You know what the majority of workplaces were like before the introduction of health and safety regulation? Yeah, well what does that tell you? The obvious correlation is that greater regulation leads to a reduction in particularly nasty and brutish practices. Likewise regulating prostitution would lead to some 'pimps' engaging in bad practices, but as unionised workers', the majority of working class prostitutes would be better off.
_ _ _ _ _

The 'left wing' of this debate proposes legislation and regulation, accompanied by mass unionisation. The 'right wing' oppose the 'degradation' of prostitutes, pointing out that prostitution is especially nasty and different, whilst proclaiming socialism will solve this. On the one hand we have clear materialist analysis, solutions and a platform for action, on the other... ??? Nothing of substance, just moralising.

[9]

To fidzboi:
Your assumption seems to be that in a post-revolutionary society, when the financial impetus that presently drives sex workers to sell their bodies in order to make a decent (or in most cases, very meager) living is no longer a factor, that women (though why you've singled out women as the sex workers in a post-revolutionary society is also unclear) will opt to continue working in prostitution out of enjoyment of the work. Have you ever talked to a prostitute who enjoys her work, let alone one who enjoys it so much that she would continue it if she had the education/skills and opportunity to provide for herself in the same way by doing something else?
You seem to pride yourself in making muddled references to 'materialism' in your comments in this thread, so perhaps you wouldn't mind substantiating your claim with some evidence?
Furthermore, you say that "prostitution is degrading due to culture norms and not due to the act itself". What do you base this on? What evidence do you have to demonstrate that being objectified in the most intimate sense in exchange for money is actually only degrading because of "culture norms"?

[communard resolution]

It goes right back to my own take on class, based on Marx's own linear approach in Capital:

1) Relationship to the legal wage labour system (inside, like proles and even bourgeoisie, or outside)
2) Relationship to the production of surplus value and advancing society's labour power and capabilities more generally (thus weeding out self-employed, cops, lawyers, lawyers, etc.)
3) Relationship to the MOP: significant-influence ownership, factual control, and societal scale (where the proles, coordinators, petit-bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie do their business)

Good points Jacob, but what do you think of Is's objection? If the relationship to the legal wage labour system is a determining factor, doesn't that make all 'illegal' immigrants, or indeed all people who work cash-in-hand Lumpenprolatarians?

Does this dilemma not ask for a new defitition of 'criminal' (e.g. 'worker exploiting worker') that's autonomous of the legal conditions?

[communard resolution]

"Sex work" leads to more trafficking. Wherever girls go for a higher price, and with restrictions(like the need for condoms), a market pops up for cheaper girls that will do anything(hint: because they are forced). .

Yes, but can you not observe the same pattern in many other industries, i.e. foreign workers being paid less while being ready to do more? What is the difference?

(My response is obviously to unionise foreign workers and fight for equal pay and equal working conditions - others, meanwhile, thought "No2EU" was the answer. Can you see the analogy?)

[fidzboi]

(though why you've singled out women as the sex workers in a post-revolutionary society is also unclear)

Oh dear, my rabid sexism has emerged from under its progressive cloak! Perhaps I should engage in that wonderful Maoist ritual of criticism and self-criticism in order to purge my wayward soul?!

Sadly, this is best point you make. But for the record, that's the only time in this thread I've been gender specific, generally I, like most others, would avoid this. In this case, it was an unthinking error. However I was responding to Kayser Soso who made reference only to women, which may have been the cause of my unconscious decision, or it could be because I would still predominantly associate sex work, like therapy and surrogacy, in a post-capitalist society with women.

It seems to be male sexual paranoia is much more widespread. The idea that all men should be 'stallions' likely plays a part, but whatever the reason, I think it exists more in men than women. I've been party to a number of conversations where a sexually immature male was advised by a sexually mature male that discussing this over with his mate would be the best way to overcome this paranoia. I, and many I know, have grown up sexually by discussing our 'issues' with understanding women.

Do women do this? No doubt. And whilst I'm not privy to private female conversations in the way I am male ones, I think there is some general difference, whether socially conditioned, biological or a bit of both, with regards the sexual maturity of the sexes. This issue, like many others, is one where I'd say women are often a lot more 'grown up' than men. But perhaps that just reflects my predilection towards seeking out female sexual partners and friends who are more 'grown up' than me. I don't know.

In case you're not sharp enough to note it, you'll see that my summary missed the phenomena of same sex relationships. Focusing solely on heterosexual relationships like I do, is evidence of my obvious homophobia. Meaning that you can now start building a picture of me as a deeply reactionary individual. Perhaps a good strategy given what else you have to say:


Have you ever talked to a prostitute who enjoys her work, let alone one who enjoys it so much that she would continue it if she had the education/skills and opportunity to provide for herself in the same way by doing something else?

Alas I've misplaced my 2008 survey of sexual workers relating to matters of job satisfaction, I think the dog ate it...

In light of that, I am forced to simply point out the gross misunderstandings you display about sex work. Firstly, sex work, like everything else, is an industry. It is part of the capitalist economic structure. So lumping all people who work in the industry under one umbrella, which seems to rely on the perception of a sex worker being a crack riddled abused young woman who is viciously exploited, is deeply erroneous.

Job satisfaction for high class escorts, for example, seems to be pretty good. Many intelligent and beautiful young women 'escort' whilst they are studying, and the impression I have formed is that they don't see it as particularly 'degrading'. If there wasn't such a social stigma around sex work, then I'd fully expect women like this to publicly and openly recount positive experiences from doing the work.

Pleasant company, fine dining,... fantastic pay!

But you'll note that I'm not saying this form of sex work would exist in a post-capitalist society. Indeed the whole concept of paying for sex is an oxymoron in a moneyless economy. There will be no pound or dollar in a communist society, so such practice will be impossible. You may exchange goods I suppose, but also quite silly in a gift economy. What would be the point? You'll just date people who'll interest you.

What I said would exist and I expected to be more widespread, was sexual work in the form of surrogacy and therapy. It may be for free, but it would still be 'work' in the loose sense of what 'work' would be in a communist society. I provided a link to wikipedia in the last page, perhaps you should go there? Wikipedia's not 'deep theory', but it's more than sufficient for providing an outline on a topic you seem clearly not to understand. Once you've read that, explain to me how this type of work would be antithetical to
a communist society?

Additionally, I never said your average 'street corner hooker' 'enjoyed' her work. Like many working people, she likely doesn't. (I'm using she because you used it, how disgraceful we both are.) Indeed I'd argue that her job satisfaction is much less than most because of the nature of the industry.

But these workers, like people in telesales or some other job that would have no place in a communist society, gain nothing by virtue of us bestowing our sympathy upon them. That's bleeding heart liberalism, and I'm a working class revolutionary who sees himself somewhere within the traditions of syndicalism and the communist left.

My approach to this problem, is therefore a class approach. I realise that 'sympathy' does nothing, but if the industry were legalised and regulated and the workers' within it unionised, preferably in a really fucking militant union, they would at least alleviate some of the more nasty and brutish practices within their profession. You have a problem with this?

Also 'porn stars' will exist in communist societies. Some people like to fuck on camera, many more like to watch people fucking. Just because it will be 'sex work' doesn't mean that two consenting adults filming themselves and then distributing it will in any way be engaged in an exploitative act. It is the economic system that produces exploitation, not the act in and of itself.

As for degrading because of cultural norms, that's obvious. If a culture sees something as being degrading, then people will feel it is. To most being pissed on is degrading, it offends our cultural sensibilities, but some folks really, really dig it. Likewise sex work is much wider than you estimate, I've already addressed this, and you simply show your ignorance of the subject by assuming that all sex workers feel they are degrading themselves and a complete lack of understanding what approach a free society should take with regards the cultural values surrounding sexual activity.

[Kayser_Soso]

Ok as usual for many threads here, this is already proceeding down retard lane. Let me state this- yes, there are many women who DO have opportunities in life, and they decide to go into the business of a high class escort. I also realize that a great many such women have every right to choose their clients and may often have courtesean style relationships, and to tell the truth that is not that far removed from MANY, and I mean MANY relationships around the world today. For example, when you hear a woman saying she's looking for a "provider"- what is that exactly? It's a long term client as far as I'm concerned. I don't know about you but when I'm looking for a partner I mean PARTNER.

Now that being said- if we could remove all the economic reasons for ending up in prostitution, and I think most of us here believe we can, then if some woman(or man)still wants to sell her body for some material benefit, then that's on them. I mean afterall, even if you eliminate money itself, there will still be things that cannot be distributed equally. Some people will end up living in a place with a better view, more conveniently located, next to a cool monument, etc. It's not my interest as to whether Jill fucks Jack because she loves him or she loves his nice floors and high ceilings, coupled with a beautiful view of the city center.

The thing is though- as long as tens of millions of girls and boys are treated like objects, and especially because of the ethnic-racial discrimination the arrises from this(as prostitution tends to become associated with entire nations and peoples from the eyes of those in inudstrialized nations), I'm going to be dead set against it. Sorry if that puts a kink in anyone's believe in absolute freedom, but I judge by the rule and not exceptions, and the rule is that prositutes are often forced by economic conditions if not outright violence to provide their body as a plaything for some sick, socially inept fuck.


And if you can't see the difference between immigrant prostitution and working in construction for low wages, you need to begin slamming your head against the nearest hard surface until it becomes clear.

[ls]

Ok as usual for many threads here, this is already proceeding down retard lane. Let me state this- yes, there are many women who DO have opportunities in life, and they decide to go into the business of a high class escort. I also realize that a great many such women have every right to choose their clients and may often have courtesean style relationships, and to tell the truth that is not that far removed from MANY, and I mean MANY relationships around the world today. For example, when you hear a woman saying she's looking for a "provider"- what is that exactly? It's a long term client as far as I'm concerned. I don't know about you but when I'm looking for a partner I mean PARTNER.

Now that being said- if we could remove all the economic reasons for ending up in prostitution, and I think most of us here believe we can, then if some woman(or man)still wants to sell her body for some material benefit, then that's on them. I mean afterall, even if you eliminate money itself, there will still be things that cannot be distributed equally. Some people will end up living in a place with a better view, more conveniently located, next to a cool monument, etc. It's not my interest as to whether Jill fucks Jack because she loves him or she loves his nice floors and high ceilings, coupled with a beautiful view of the city center.

The thing is though- as long as tens of millions of girls and boys are treated like objects, and especially because of the ethnic-racial discrimination the arrises from this(as prostitution tends to become associated with entire nations and peoples from the eyes of those in inudstrialized nations), I'm going to be dead set against it. Sorry if that puts a kink in anyone's believe in absolute freedom, but I judge by the rule and not exceptions, and the rule is that prositutes are often forced by economic conditions if not outright violence to provide their body as a plaything for some sick, socially inept fuck.


And if you can't see the difference between immigrant prostitution and working in construction for low wages, you need to begin slamming your head against the nearest hard surface until it becomes clear.

Couldn't agree more.

All I've said is that illegal immigrant workers are not lumpens really, because that's a fact, prostitutes are not lumpens either- they are also workers in my eyes and they should never feel that they have to do what they are doing (not that other kinds of illegal immigrant workers aren't put in literally life-threatening work, such as the horrific deaths of the cockle pickers at morecambe bay for instance).

[fidzboi]

I'm going to be dead set against it. Sorry if that puts a kink in anyone's believe in absolute freedom,

How does this translate into a political programme? I have said what I think, where I stand and what I propose, just retorting in the manner in which you do does not engage any arguments, nor does it offer any kind of practical programme. What is your advice to a prostitute? If she has no way of escaping her job, how do you propose she goes about ensuring at least some amount of protection?

It'll be abolished under socialism is not a reasonable argument, it's just a banal statement.

[PRC-UTE]

Why should this be kept in mind?

Many farmers are slaves, too, but I've yet to meet a communist/anarchist who would discount the legitimacy of farm work for this reason.

There are farmers who are dragged from their home, transported thousands of miles and raped over and over again?

I saw a documentary about this, and a woman who was pregnant was taken, drugged and raped- she ended up losing the child.

Her husband eventually found her and brought her home. But their lives are terribly damaged of course. Financially, emotionally, psychologically, socially, etc.

So yeah I guess that's your typical farmer :confused:

[Kayser_Soso]

How does this translate into a political programme? I have said what I think, where I stand and what I propose, just retorting in the manner in which you do does not engage any arguments, nor does it offer any kind of practical programme. What is your advice to a prostitute? If she has no way of escaping her job, how do you propose she goes about ensuring at least some amount of protection?

It'll be abolished under socialism is not a reasonable argument, it's just a banal statement.


We support organizations that deal with the problem, like those I listed. We get the word out to young girls in at-risk countries, spread knowledge of help hotlines, and so on. We can support laws like those of Sweden, which criminalize only pimps and johns, while providing free medical/psychological care to the girls Since revolution is basically an insurgency, and it needs to start somewhere(and it needs money)- I think you can use your imagination as to what to do with the gangsters, pimps, and traffickers.

[communard resolution]

And if you can't see the difference between immigrant prostitution and working in construction for low wages, you need to begin slamming your head against the nearest hard surface until it becomes clear.

Sounds great, but not a helpful answer.

[fidzboi]

We support organizations that deal with the problem, like those I listed. We get the word out to young girls in at-risk countries, spread knowledge of help hotlines, and so on. We can support laws like those of Sweden, which criminalize only pimps and johns, while providing free medical/psychological care to the girls

Your occasional statements about 'revolution' and your identification as a 'Stalinist' aside, I see nothing that suggests your approach is one of a revolutionary communist. The 'organisations' you support, your tactic of 'help hotlines' and your support for social-democratic legal measures, is liberalism wrapped in a radical cloak. Why support all these measures yet ignore the most blindly obvious tactic, which is a hallmark of working class politics: the organisation of labour into class bodies which are capable of directly fighting in their interests? Class politics is much, much more than good intentions and charitable organisations.


Since revolution is basically an insurgency, and it needs to start somewhere(and it needs money)

That's an historically inaccurate statement. The majority of historical revolts, whether they turned into widespread social revolutions - France 1789, Russia 1917, etc., etc. - or just petered out, - France 1968 - were not 'basically an insurgency'. The Iraqi resistance is 'basically an insurgency', an organised and disciplined fighting force that aims to overthrow a ruling elite. A revolution by contrast, is the self action of thousands of people who all take it upon themselves, with very little in the form of guidance, to overthrow a whole socio-economic system.

These events are remarkably spontaneous, Lenin noted for example how the Bolsheviks trailed behind the self action of the working class, something he chastised leading Bolsheviks for allowing. The civil wars that often come after a revolution, could be described as 'basically an insurgency'. But then we have a perfectly good word to describe what they are: a civil war!

Only where the tasks of the revolution are entangled with the task of anti-imperialist action do we see your 'insurgency' hypothesis hold some weight. But analysis of those movements would find that they either required large scale, unorganised spontaneous practice from many citizens, - such as is the case with the Cuban revolution and the general strike that swept Castro and the July 26 Movement to power, - or they remain 'insurgent' in nature and take stake power in a quasi-military way - the Chinese revolution, for example, which was a war of liberation.

Radical agrarian reform is often a staple of such anti-imperialist, nationalist movements, but the lack of revolutionary democracy is due to the lack of revolutionary practice within groups outside of the 'insurgency'. In Russia, Cuba, Spain and many others, the revolutionary citizenry, the working class, made significant revolutionary democratic gains, in China and other places, like the former Eastern bloc, where we have the 'insurgent' approach to revolution, revolutionary democracy is absent. Revolution and insurgency are different, they may share similar goals, but the way in which people are involved fundamentally shapes the nature of the democratic practice that comes next.

[counterblast]

"Sex work" leads to more trafficking. Wherever girls go for a higher price, and with restrictions(like the need for condoms), a market pops up for cheaper girls that will do anything(hint: because they are forced). This has been the case in the Netherlands, Germany, and pretty much every other country that legalizes prostitution. Coalition Against Trafficking in Women has plenty of material on this phenomenon.

People are not commodities, their bodies are not commodities.

Again, it seems the nature of your complaint arises from the competitive markets of capitalism & the enslavement of women, not sex work as a trade.

As I mentioned before, in America, farm work was once an extremely competitive market. Those with an enslaved workforce were able to churn out more goods and at a cheaper price than those with hired field laborers.

The root of the problem in neither case stems from the enslaved workers (sex worker or farmer) or the nature of the work itself, but rather from the social & political systems of domination that allow for the enslavement of workers.

[counterblast]

There are farmers who are dragged from their home, transported thousands of miles and raped over and over again?

I saw a documentary about this, and a woman who was pregnant was taken, drugged and raped- she ended up losing the child.

Her husband eventually found her and brought her home. But their lives are terribly damaged of course. Financially, emotionally, psychologically, socially, etc.

So yeah I guess that's your typical farmer :confused:

Please stop with the reactionary responses.

This is the leftist equivalent of "but this one lady had an abortion because her husband forced her to, and was emotionally scarred for life, so obviously we should make abortion illegal".

Of course what happened to that lady is terrible. Rape is terrible. Slavery is terrible. But sex work in itself in neutral.

And for your information, there are plenty of farmers who were drug from their houses and raped (http://www.racismreview.com/blog/2009/10/14/the-rape-of-black-women-under-slavery-part-ii/).

[Kayser_Soso]

Your occasional statements about 'revolution' and your identification as a 'Stalinist' aside, I see nothing that suggests your approach is one of a revolutionary communist. The 'organisations' you support, your tactic of 'help hotlines' and your support for social-democratic legal measures, is liberalism wrapped in a radical cloak. Why support all these measures yet ignore the most blindly obvious tactic, which is a hallmark of working class politics: the organisation of labour into class bodies which are capable of directly fighting in their interests? Class politics is much, much more than good intentions and charitable organisations.

I see you are quite confused. I was asked what can be done about this problem prior to a socialist revolution. I gave practical advice. It is idiocy to think that if we can't have the whole revolution, nothing is worth doing. This is the problem with the modern Western left these days- it has to be all or nothing. Absolute nonsense.




That's an historically inaccurate statement.

If you want to engage in semantic bickering I suppose.



The majority of historical revolts, whether they turned into widespread social revolutions - France 1789, Russia 1917, etc., etc. - or just petered out, - France 1968 - were not 'basically an insurgency'.

When people seek to overthrow the state or change major policies via force of arms, this is called an insurgency.




The Iraqi resistance is 'basically an insurgency', an organised and disciplined fighting force that aims to overthrow a ruling elite. A revolution by contrast, is the self action of thousands of people who all take it upon themselves, with very little in the form of guidance, to overthrow a whole socio-economic system.

Again, semantics- revolution, if it is to be successful, will inevitably involve an insurgency against the current regime.



These events are remarkably spontaneous, Lenin noted for example how the Bolsheviks trailed behind the self action of the working class, something he chastised leading Bolsheviks for allowing. The civil wars that often come after a revolution, could be described as 'basically an insurgency'. But then we have a perfectly good word to describe what they are: a civil war!

Workers often act spontaneously, but in favor of short term goals and reforms. Were this not the case, we should have seen a successful revolution more to the liking of anarchists, Trots, or whatever.

[fidzboi]

I see you are quite confused. I was asked what can be done about this problem prior to a socialist revolution. I gave practical advice. It is idiocy to think that if we can't have the whole revolution, nothing is worth doing. This is the problem with the modern Western left these days- it has to be all or nothing. Absolute nonsense.

I am confused? Now that is a quite confusing statement. :confused:

My arguments in this thread have centred around two points: (1) in a post-capitalist society we would still see sex work, particularly the sectors that are what could be called medical in nature; and (2), in the here and now, I support legislation of the profession and advocate that workers' within it should organise themselves in trade unions. These two themes have been central to all my posts so far.

Now if you read again what you've written above, I think you'll see that it is you that is 'confused'. You have chosen not to engage either of my main arguments, offered no refutation of my analysis, not countered my attacks on your political programme and have instead resorted to strawmen, poor ones at that. I expect better, even from 'Stalinists'.


When people seek to overthrow the state or change major policies via force of arms, this is called an insurgency.

When people seek to overthrow the state, change major policies, and establish a new system of class dominance via force of arms, this is called a revolution.


Workers often act spontaneously, but in favor of short term goals and reforms.

Workers', in times of revolt, have shown a distinct tendency to place industry under their own management, as a class. 'Soviets' have never been created by middle class intellectuals who cloak their class interests in Marxist jargon and dialectical wizardry. The emancipation of the working class is the historic task of the working class.

[New Tet]

Please stop with the reactionary responses.

This is the leftist equivalent of "but this one lady had an abortion because her husband forced her to, and was emotionally scarred for life, so obviously we should make abortion illegal".

Of course what happened to that lady is terrible. Rape is terrible. Slavery is terrible. But sex work in itself in neutral.

And for your information, there are plenty of farmers who were drug from their houses and raped (http://www.racismreview.com/blog/2009/10/14/the-rape-of-black-women-under-slavery-part-ii/).

Neutral? "Sex work", as you call it, is rape formalized by the exchange of money. The 'legalized rape' oxymoron (Pogue!) comes to mind.

It's not a closely guarded secret that what socialism seeks to abolish are the conditions under which the individual and the collective become merchandise in the hands of a few.

Also, it doesn't necessarily follow that because the problem of prostitution is a form of slavery, it ought to be treated in the same way as wage slavery.