I believe that Pornography and Prostitution should be illegal do Communists and Socia

[tradeunionsupporter]

I believe that Pornography and Prostitution should be illegal do Communists and Socialists agree with banning both of these because the Soviet Union banned Pornography and Prostitution.

[ChrisK]

Depends on your socialist. Prostitution would not exist in a communist society due to proffessions no longer existing. But you'd really have to define pornography. I find movie studio pornography to be explotive (like all other businesses) and therefore wrong. However, I see no problem with people taping themselves having sex or whatever and distributing it. But thats just me.

[#FF0000]

I believe that Pornography and Prostitution should be illegal do Communists and Socialists agree with banning both of these because the Soviet Union banned Pornography and Prostitution.

no.

if people want to trade stuff for sex (with or without a camera present) they should be allowed to.

It's just a problem when people are forced into these situations where they feel they have to resort to going into pornography or prostitution just to survive.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Prostitution should be banned, yes. I think you'll find very broad agreement on that issue among socialists and communists, for the very simple reason that - no matter what we think of sex - prostitution is a capitalist enterprise.

What to do about pornography, on the other hand, is a controversial matter. Some comrades don't believe anything should be changed at all with regard to pornography. Others believe it should be banned on grounds of being sexist. This always leads to debates on whether it would be possible to have non-sexist pornography.

My personal opinion is as follows:


Well, let's think about porn in a socialist society. Can you imagine a planned economy which dedicates some resources to the production of pornography? No, of course not. No one could seriously argue that we dedicate the resources of society to porn when there are so many other much more important things we could do instead.

There will not be any state-run porn. And for-profit porn will be impossible, as a side effect of the elimination of private industry in general. So, the only porn that is possible in a socialist society is amateur porn, filmed by ordinary people with ordinary cameras and shared freely.

There you go: the problem takes care of itself. By eliminating for-profit activities in general, we ensure that no one has a material reason to force or pressure other people into participating in porn movies any more. Also, by giving everyone a decent standard of living, we ensure that no one will participate in an activity they see as degrading just so they can survive. Porn will become a hobby, something that some people do for fun, if and when they feel like it. This means no more paying for porn. But it also means a lot less porn for you. Sorry.

And as a bonus, it will greatly reduce the quantity of spam on the internet.

Fight spam. Join the revolution! :)

[Kwisatz Haderach]

if people want to trade stuff for sex (with or without a camera present) they should be allowed to.
Say what? You're talking about the private sale of something on the market. That the "something" happens to be sex is irrelevant. The point is that we do not want a society where people earn an income by trading things on the open market.

[tradeunionsupporter]

Why would there be no proffessions under Communism ?

[Dejavu]

^ Division of labor is somehow, exploitative.

[Dejavu]

Really, the only difference between Pornography and Prostitution , as a profession, is the camera.

As a psychological matter, we can say more about it but I would not consider either 'immoral' and I think it would be immoral to ban them actually.

[#FF0000]

Say what? You're talking about the private sale of something on the market. That the "something" happens to be sex is irrelevant. The point is that we do not want a society where people earn an income by trading things on the open market.

Yeah I figure people will still trade shit though. Someone will bake a cake and someone else will say "hey i'll sleep with you for some of that cake".

Sort of a weird situation I know.

[ChrisK]

Why would there be no proffessions under Communism ?

With no division of labor and no money to be made, people wouldn't have to do just one thing. They do what they want productivly.

[tradeunionsupporter]

Under Communism are you saying that people would not have to work there would be no Jobs no Wages no Money ?

[Dejavu]

^Precisely

[Dejavu]

Yeah I figure people will still trade shit though. Someone will bake a cake and someone else will say "hey i'll sleep with you for some of that cake".

Sort of a weird situation I know.

Only if the surplus value of the cake is worth the surplus value of the sex.

[Dejavu]

With no division of labor and no money to be made, people wouldn't have to do just one thing. They do what they want productivly.


Why productively?

[tradeunionsupporter]

Does Karl Marx talk about there being no state no classes no moneyu or wages in his Communist Manifesto.

[Dejavu]

Does Karl Marx talk about there being no state no classes no moneyu or wages in his Communist Manifesto.

Yep. The stateless communism comes after a massive state he calls for in Socialism. The socialist state takes all the wealth generated by capitalism and redistributes it through society. It sets up the stage for transition into communes and violently or non violently eliminates ideological opposition ( either by assimilation or other less pleasant means.) All capital disbursed through out society is monopolized to the state and the economy is warped, through force, to fit Marx's dream of 'the entire economy working as a single factory.' Anyway, once the proletariat state has eliminated all ideological opposition and brought society into post-scarcity , everyone in the state begins to relinquish their role and blends back in with society and the state 'withers away.' Everyone presumably lives happily ever after (?), the end.

[revolution inaction]

Does Karl Marx talk about there being no state no classes no moneyu or wages in his Communist Manifesto.

i don't know, but it doesn't matter because communism is not based on the communist manifesto.


I believe that Pornography and Prostitution should be illegal do Communists and Socialists agree with banning both of these because the Soviet Union banned Pornography and Prostitution.

I completely disagree, nether should be banned, but prostitution should be eliminated as far as possible, I think this will happen naturally in a communist society because they will be no money and all goods will be free, so there would be no reason for prostitution. Pornography will continue to exist but with out the exploitive relationships that are usually part of it at the current time.
the soviet union has nothing to do with communism, it was state capitalist.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Prostitution will not exist anymore because the conditions which allow for its existence will no longer exist. Pornography in the sense we have it today will no longer exist because I feel it is another example of commodifying the female body. However I have no problem with the idea of pornography itself, being the depiction of sex in art. I have serious objections to porn in Capitalist society however.

[ZeroNowhere]

Why would there be no proffessions under Communism ?
Because that sounds profound.


Can you imagine a planned economy which dedicates some resources to the production of pornography?Of course. There's always the problem of people being too embarrassed to say they would support doing so, but I can certainly imagine a 'planned economy' (a term I rather dislike, but anyways) dedicating resources to producing porn, and compensating it.

[mikelepore]

Nothing should ever be banned unless you're prepared to have hundreds of thousands of people in prison for doing it. The writers here who said that pornography and prostitution should be banned are effectively saying that they support having a society that will keep hundreds of thousands of people in prison for those reasons. Likewise with other topics on this forum about "should religion be banned", etc. Every affirmative answer in these discussions calls for further enlargement of the prison population. This generalization works for me, because I would approve of even the most perfected classless society of the future going on having hundreds of thousands of people in prison, if necessary, if they had committed murder or violent assault. But for their sexual practices or other lifestyle choices which involve no infringement of the rights of others? Certainly not.

[Zanthorus]

With no division of labor and no money to be made, people wouldn't have to do just one thing. They do what they want productivly.

I don't see why their can't be at least a small division of labour within communism. Total eradication of the division is absurd. The unbalanced accumulation of knowledge of a particular field, the necessity for trade, culture of superiority/inferiority etc can be offset through Job Complexes. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balanced_job_complex)

[RGacky3]

don't see why their can't be at least a small division of labour within communism. Total eradication of the division is absurd. The unbalanced accumulation of knowledge of a particular field, the necessity for trade, culture of superiority/inferiority etc can be offset through Job Complexes. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balanced_job_complex)

Division of labor is one of those things that is done extreamly inefficiently under Capitalism, and would be done much more efficiently under socialism. Do bosses get their jobs because they are good at managing perse? Not always, infact I'd say the majority of times no, maybe the next welder you see might actaully have made an amazing manager, had he had the opportunity. Under communism people will tend to do what they are good at, considering work would'nt be done for profit, or what they enjoy.

As far as prostitution and pornography? Why? If you don't like prostitution don't visit prostitutes, if you don't like porn, don't watch it. If your a Christian (which I am) just stay away from it. But why mandate your morality on everyone else?

As far as prostitution is involved, I don't see how it could work under communism.

[Havet]

no.

if people want to trade stuff for sex (with or without a camera present) they should be allowed to.

It's just a problem when people are forced into these situations where they feel they have to resort to going into pornography or prostitution just to survive.

this

[Dejavu]

Prostitution will not exist anymore because the conditions which allow for its existence will no longer exist. Pornography in the sense we have it today will no longer exist because I feel it is another example of commodifying the female body. However I have no problem with the idea of pornography itself, being the depiction of sex in art. I have serious objections to porn in Capitalist society however.

That's an excellent non-answer.

[FSL]

no.

if people want to trade stuff for sex (with or without a camera present) they should be allowed to.



You do know trade will be abolished I'm guessing?


And to the question people will go with whomever they wish, tape it or not as they wish and distribute it or not as they wish. It is even done today when society considers sex a taboo.

[Havet]

You do know trade will be abolished I'm guessing?

lol

[Psy]

Why ban pornography, it would just drive pornography underground even in a communist society. If it an issue of sexism just make as much pornography aimed at female as aimed at males. I also think a communist society would plan the production of sex toys which would be openly debated just like any other product.

[ChrisK]

Under Communism are you saying that people would not have to work there would be no Jobs no Wages no Money ?

No, I'm saying that people would work, but not have specific jobs. You don't need professions, people will work because 1) they want to and 2) if you want things to be produced, you better be producing.

[ChrisK]

I don't see why their can't be at least a small division of labour within communism. Total eradication of the division is absurd. The unbalanced accumulation of knowledge of a particular field, the necessity for trade, culture of superiority/inferiority etc can be offset through Job Complexes. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balanced_job_complex)

Job complexes are fine for the transitional period, but under actual communism would be unneeded. Accumulation of knowledge would exist on what an individual wants. Einstein would still have worked on phyisics under communism because he wanted to know more about it.

[ChrisK]

That's an excellent non-answer.

What are you talking about? He says it would be a non-issue in Communist society, but he has problems with it under capitalism. Thats a pretty percise answer.

[#FF0000]

You do know trade will be abolished I'm guessing

Baseball cards will still exist post-revolution.

[Havet]

Baseball cards will still exist post-revolution.

But won't everyone have an equal claim to them? How could someone be justified in having a monopoly over a specific baseball card?

They will have to be produced for anyone who want them, destroying the point of trade, which implies limited quantity.

[Psy]

Baseball cards will still exist post-revolution.
No they won't, baseball cards barely exists now due to the collapse of their collector value, a worker revolution probably be the final nail in their coffin.

[Bud Struggle]

Well if Cuba is an example of Socialism (which I know it's not perfect) it has plenty of prostitution. You would think that it is something the state allows because there are so many prostitutes in Havanna.

[ChrisK]

But won't everyone have an equal claim to them? How could someone be justified in having a monopoly over a specific baseball card?

They will have to be produced for anyone who want them, destroying the point of trade, which implies limited quantity.

Your confusing private property and personal possesions.

[Havet]

Your confusing private property and personal possesions.

So if I come up with a machine that creates my baseball cards, I can't own it because it is a Means of Production.

But if I have an individual, or group of, baseball cards, they count as possession.

Is this what you mean?

[ChrisK]

So if I come up with a machine that creates my baseball cards, I can't own it because it is a Means of Production.

But if I have an individual, or group of, baseball cards, they count as possession.

Is this what you mean?

Basically.

[Havet]

Basically.

What's wrong with having a machine that creates baseball cards provided I don't restrict other people in any way from building their own machines that create baseball cards?

[ChrisK]

What's wrong with having a machine that creates baseball cards provided I don't restrict other people in any way from building their own machines that create baseball cards?

Then you aren't owning it then. Owning implies a restriction.

[Bud Struggle]

What's wrong with having a machine that creates baseball cards provided I don't restrict other people in any way from building their own machines that create baseball cards?

And let's say there was some sort of "secret" that only you had--so that your cards were so much better and more desireable than other people's cards.

You could sell them for a premium--

Q. But if there is no money in Communism, what could you take in trade?

A. A little time with the nubile daughters of the people wanting the baseball cards you produce.

Like the serpant in the Garden of Eden, Capitalism enters the garden of Communism. :D

[Havet]

Then you aren't owning it then. Owning implies a restriction.

So we can theorize about a society, based solely on possessions and free trade of good and services, a real free market, without restricting other people.

Sounds good to me.

[ChrisK]

So we can theorize about a society, based solely on possessions and free trade of good and services, a real free market, without restricting other people.

Sounds good to me.

Congrats, you've learned how to put words in my mouth:thumbdown:.

No market. No money. No need to have your very own baseball card machine.

[Havet]

Congrats, you've learned how to put words in my mouth:thumbdown:.

I never claimed you said that. I just took your accepted premise to its logical extreme.


No market. No money. No need to have your very own baseball card machine.

You just accepted (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1591820&postcount=39) the premise that it wouldn't be owning, therefore no problem for communists, since it wouldn't classify as private property, but as a personal possession.

If we extrapolate this baseball card machine creator to all possible Means of Production, as well as including equality of authority, of opportunity, and the fact that nobody will restrict others, then certainly you would not oppose it?

Given the ability of people to have possessions, some of them quite unique, certainly you wouldn't oppose the idea of some people trading them if others are not willing to bear the cost of manufacturing it themselves (which they could if they wanted, since they would not be restricted)?

[Dejavu]

I never claimed you said that. I just took your accepted premise to its logical extreme.



You just accepted (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1591820&postcount=39) the premise that it wouldn't be owning, therefore no problem for communists, since it wouldn't classify as private property, but as a personal possession.

If we extrapolate this baseball card machine creator to all possible Means of Production, as well as including equality of authority, of opportunity, and the fact that nobody will restrict others, then certainly you would not oppose it?

Given the ability of people to have possessions, some of them quite unique, certainly you wouldn't oppose the idea of some people trading them if others are not willing to bear the cost of manufacturing it themselves (which they could if they wanted, since they would not be restricted)?


Oh snap! This is an excellent post.

[ChrisK]

I never claimed you said that. I just took your accepted premise to its logical extreme.

Thats not its logical extreme at all. The premise is that personal possesions are okay since they function in a non-exploitive way.


You just accepted (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1591820&postcount=39) the premise that it wouldn't be owning, therefore no problem for communists, since it wouldn't classify as private property, but as a personal possession.

Sure its a possession. The point is if you exploit people with it, it goes beyond a possession. Furthermore, I was pointing out that only a complete idiot such as yourself would want a baseball card making machine in a society without a market.


If we extrapolate this baseball card machine creator to all possible Means of Production, as well as including equality of authority, of opportunity, and the fact that nobody will restrict others, then certainly you would not oppose it?

I would since you have to have people working those machines. While you profit off of their labor. Your imaginary scenario where you do all the work does not exist and will not exist.


Given the ability of people to have possessions, some of them quite unique, certainly you wouldn't oppose the idea of some people trading them if others are not willing to bear the cost of manufacturing it themselves (which they could if they wanted, since they would not be restricted)?

Without money there is no cost and no market. Really. I promise.

[ChrisK]

Oh snap! This is an excellent post.

Do you ever say anything relevant?

[Die Rote Fahne]

Prostitution wouldn't exist. I guess you could bang someone if they made you something, but you can't get money if money doesn't exist.

If people still want to do porn, which some people actually like to do, not necessarily the pros, they should be allowed to make it. They can't make money off of it, so the porn industry would no longer exist, but people like porn and some people like to make it.

[Havet]

Thats not its logical extreme at all. The premise is that personal possesions are okay since they function in a non-exploitive way.

Good then


Sure its a possession. The point is if you exploit people with it, it goes beyond a possession. Furthermore, I was pointing out that only a complete idiot such as yourself would want a baseball card making machine in a society without a market.

Which is why possessions only remain possessions until they begin to exploit, hence becoming private property.

In my example, no exploitation could derive from this system of possessions - which is basically mutualism.

My example clearly creates a special condition - the ability and necessity for a market.


I would since you have to have people working those machines. While you profit off of their labor. Your imaginary scenario where you do all the work does not exist and will not exist.

Ah, but bear in mind my scenario does not profit off other people's labor. They are not forced into working for me. They are, just as I am, not restricted into creating their own baseball card machines for themselves. In short, there is equality of opportunity. Since we are still hypothesizing inside a communist society, they still have everything they need for, so I would have to offer pretty convincing reasons to let them share some of their labor as a profit for me. This can be done through higher wages, or simply because such people have a hobby interest in baseball cards.


Without money there is no cost and no market. Really. I promise.

Cost exists in all societies, everywhere, anytime. It is a condition of the universe.

Just because you dont have money or free trade does not mean things do not cost to be produced as well. They require labor, hence the people who work are taking up the cost.

[Dejavu]

Do you ever say anything relevant?

That's for you to decide. Apparently I did if you felt the need to highlight and respond to it.

[Dejavu]

I just find it hard to accept the argument that is basically : "Communism isn't capitalism , prostitution exists in capitalism , therefore , it would not exist in communism" And how exactly is it that you know that? You might say "no money." O.K. but why can't they just barter? There is still stuff in communism. Then one would say, the prostitute would not have any desire to have anything extra because every need and want she/he could have is already solved in communism.

Maybe, but how do you know this?

[ChrisK]

Which is why possessions only remain possessions until they begin to exploit, hence becoming private property.

In my example, no exploitation could derive from this system of possessions - which is basically mutualism.

Exploitation comes from you making a profit off of others labor. Your scenario would necessiate this.


My example clearly creates a special condition - the ability and necessity for a market.

Your scenario was attempted in the late 1700's and early 1800's. It didn't work so well.

Why is the market necessary?


Ah, but bear in mind my scenario does not profit off other people's labor. They are not forced into working for me. They are, just as I am, not restricted into creating their own baseball card machines for themselves. In short, there is equality of opportunity. Since we are still hypothesizing inside a communist society, they still have everything they need for, so I would have to offer pretty convincing reasons to let them share some of their labor as a profit for me. This can be done through higher wages, or simply because such people have a hobby interest in baseball cards.

You continue to function as if there is a market within communism. Wages would not exist. Paying for things would not exist.

You are describing capitalism, which it is cleary exploitive.



Cost exists in all societies, everywhere, anytime. It is a condition of the universe.

You ought to source that for me. As I learned in anthropology for 95% of human existance there were no markets, no costs, no nothing. I find 5% of human existance being a strange marker for a condition of the universe.


Just because you dont have money or free trade does not mean things do not cost to be produced as well. They require labor, hence the people who work are taking up the cost.

Oh sure, baseball cards are made up of shit. That doesn't mean it will cost anything and people will be doing the labor in the interest of society and because most of the labor will be things they want to do.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Ah, but bear in mind my scenario does not profit off other people's labor. They are not forced into working for me. They are, just as I am, not restricted into creating their own baseball card machines for themselves.
And how precisely are these machines created? If you can snap your fingers and wish one of them into existence, then yes, of course you should have sole control (private property) over it.

But, in the real world, machines are created out of raw materials. And who owns all the raw materials in socialism and communism? The people as a whole. That is why the people will also own any machines built from those materials.

[Dr Mindbender]

I believe that Pornography and Prostitution should be illegal do Communists and Socialists agree with banning both of these because the Soviet Union banned Pornography and Prostitution.

The Soviet Union also had a social class system with poverty, authoritarian border controls, a poor record on freedom of speech and an aggressive military spending policy. The USSR wasnt a paragon of socialism that we should follow.

[Havet]

Exploitation comes from you making a profit off of others labor. Your scenario would necessiate this.

It would not necessitate this. remmember, nobody is forcing people to be exploited. They would only come to me by their free will.


Your scenario was attempted in the late 1700's and early 1800's. It didn't work so well.

As far as I'm concerned, mutualism as an economic theory was never tried anywhere anytime except, perhaps, the internet, and even so that's stretching it.

So basically your strawman fails.


Why is the market necessary?

Its as necessary as freedom. In fact, it is a component of it.


You continue to function as if there is a market within communism. Wages would not exist. Paying for things would not exist.

Fine, then people will trade other things instead of wages or money.


You are describing capitalism, which it is cleary exploitive.

Capitalism is exploitative, but i'm not (http://www.revleft.com/vb/would-anarcho-socialist-t116765/index.html?t=116765) describing capitalism.


You ought to source that for me. As I learned in anthropology for 95% of human existance there were no markets, no costs, no nothing. I find 5% of human existance being a strange marker for a condition of the universe.

cost is the value of money that has been used up to produce something, and hence is not available for use anymore.

How can you NOT understand that no matter what, things will always have a cost?

If you wish for a cake, does it just appear out of thin air? No.


Oh sure, baseball cards are made up of shit. That doesn't mean it will cost anything and people will be doing the labor in the interest of society and because most of the labor will be things they want to do.

Yes, it does mean it will cost something. It will cost to create the paper, the paint and everything else to create them, including their design. Just because in a communist society they may be created differently it doesn't mean they don't have a COST.

[ChrisK]

It would not necessitate this. remmember, nobody is forcing people to be exploited. They would only come to me by their free will.

You own the means of production. You pay them a wage. Wages = exploitation.


As far as I'm concerned, mutualism as an economic theory was never tried anywhere anytime except, perhaps, the internet, and even so that's stretching it.

So basically your strawman fails.

Ahh, sorry. I assumed you were an anarcho-capitalist.



Its as necessary as freedom. In fact, it is a component of it.

Why? And to the second part; how?



Fine, then people will trade other things instead of wages or money.

No. It would be more like in Tribal societies where you produce something, put it where all can use and everyone has it. Take a harvest. A bunch of people harvest grain, they put it in the tribes grain storage and everyone draws from it. No trade what so ever.


cost is the value of money that has been used up to produce something, and hence is not available for use anymore.

How can you NOT understand that no matter what, things will always have a cost?

If you wish for a cake, does it just appear out of thin air? No.

Really. No matter what you say. How long have we have money? 5000 years archeologists say? So why then do things have an inherent cost? If you are speaking of time as cost then you have a strange definition of cost.


Yes, it does mean it will cost something. It will cost to create the paper, the paint and everything else to create them, including their design. Just because in a communist society they may be created differently it doesn't mean they don't have a COST.

You just defined cost as monetary value. Without money or wages where is the cost?

[Havet]

You own the means of production. You pay them a wage. Wages = exploitation.

Ah, but certainly you can acknowledge that it would be different from the current system?

I would own a means of production. But nobody would be forced to work for me. They would only do so if I had sufficient benefits to offer them. In a sense, they are giving up a part of the value they are creating for me to achieve something. But they will be doing so out of their own free will. Given the different dynamic of the system, we would largely see cooperatives and communes rather than small businesses, but nevertheless they could exist.


Why? And to the second part; how?

Why? Because denying it would be denying a worker's right to the full product of his labor.

How?

What is freedom? "Freedom is the right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right) to act according to ones will without being held up by the power of others."

So, in my view, it has two components: personal freedom and economic freedom. These components are widely used, especially in Nolan Charts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_Chart)


No. It would be more like in Tribal societies where you produce something, put it where all can use and everyone has it. Take a harvest. A bunch of people harvest grain, they put it in the tribes grain storage and everyone draws from it. No trade what so ever.

Certainly. That may be your preferred method of organization. But you cannot deny other people who think differently the freedom to organize themselves under the non-exploitative method I presented.


Really. No matter what you say. How long have we have money? 5000 years archeologists say? So why then do things have an inherent cost? If you are speaking of time as cost then you have a strange definition of cost.

You just defined cost as monetary value. Without money or wages where is the cost?

There are other definitions of cost.

By Adam Smith

"The real price of every thing, what every thing really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it. What every thing is really worth to the man who has acquired it, and who wants to dispose of it or exchange it for something else, is the toil and trouble which it can save to himself, and which it can impose upon other people."

And by David Ricardo

"The value of a commodity, or the quantity of any other commodity for which it will exchange, depends on the relative quantity of labour which is necessary for its production, and not as the greater or less compensation which is paid for that labour."

Just because a society may not have costs expressed in money does not mean the cost has disappeared.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Some people sure do a good lob living up to the stereotype of the utopian/idealist communist.

"there will be no money and no jobs and no trade and no porn and no professions and no division of labor and no costs...

Yeah, great way to get people to become socialists.


So if I come up with a machine that creates my baseball cards, I can't own it because it is a Means of Production.

But if I have an individual, or group of, baseball cards, they count as possession.

Is this what you mean?

You mean, like, a printer?!?! OH NOES

I don't think that's an essential part of the economy.

[Havet]

And how precisely are these machines created? If you can snap your fingers and wish one of them into existence, then yes, of course you should have sole control (private property) over it.

But, in the real world, machines are created out of raw materials. And who owns all the raw materials in socialism and communism? The people as a whole. That is why the people will also own any machines built from those materials.

Collective ownership is no more justifiable than individual ownership

[Rosa Provokateur]

I believe that Pornography and Prostitution should be illegal do Communists and Socialists agree with banning both of these because the Soviet Union banned Pornography and Prostitution.

A world without gay porn O_O

That's like... maybe the most reactionary thing I've ever heard of. It's inhumane to deprive others of porn :sneaky:

[ChrisK]

Ah, but certainly you can acknowledge that it would be different from the current system?

Different doesn't mean non-explotive.


I would own a means of production. But nobody would be forced to work for me. They would only do so if I had sufficient benefits to offer them. In a sense, they are giving up a part of the value they are creating for me to achieve something. But they will be doing so out of their own free will. Given the different dynamic of the system, we would largely see cooperatives and communes rather than small businesses, but nevertheless they could exist.

Choosing where to work has nothing to do with it. People go to a work place out of their own free will. That doesn't make it less exploitive.

To define Exploitation = Real value of labor - wages


Why? Because denying it would be denying a worker's right to the full product of his labor.

How?


How?

What is freedom? "Freedom is the right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right) to act according to ones will without being held up by the power of others."

So, in my view, it has two components: personal freedom and economic freedom. These components are widely used, especially in Nolan Charts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_Chart)

Well then your right to own property and to control the means of production, interferes with my right to own that means of production. You have thereby limited my economic freedom.

Additionally you didn't tell me how the market is important to freedom. Just that economic freedom is part of freedom, which means absolutely nothing.


Certainly. That may be your preferred method of organization. But you cannot deny other people who think differently the freedom to organize themselves under the non-exploitative method I presented.

Glad you admit that I'm right about markets not being necessary to freedom.

Yes I will deny your method as it is expolitive.


There are other definitions of cost.

By Adam Smith

"The real price of every thing, what every thing really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it. What every thing is really worth to the man who has acquired it, and who wants to dispose of it or exchange it for something else, is the toil and trouble which it can save to himself, and which it can impose upon other people."

And by David Ricardo

"The value of a commodity, or the quantity of any other commodity for which it will exchange, depends on the relative quantity of labour which is necessary for its production, and not as the greater or less compensation which is paid for that labour."

Just because a society may not have costs expressed in money does not mean the cost has disappeared.

Nice changing of your entire definition. Well I'll entertain these one's too.

Now then, since its you who carries the burden of proof, tell me how toil cost necessitates trade.

Keep in mind, I've already presented the fact that for 95% of human existance this was not true.

[VeganLiz]

I don't think prostitution should be illegal... Sex ought to be a personal matter. People do not always have sex out of love. Sometimes it's as a reward, from lust, or because they want something from someone. If both people are honest with each other about what they want out of sex, I don't see what's wrong with it as long as they're both consenting.

I dislike pornography but I don't think that's a reason to ban it...actually I'll talk more on porn later. I have class in a few minutes.

[Česká Zbrojovka]

[First post, hi everyone]

No I do not. I believe it to be a matter of free choice. Pornography is ok in my books. Although it must be kept restricted so as to protect against minors. The age of the internet poses problems there, but as a parent you should be taking measures to make sure that they do no view this. Make passwords, do whatever. But I don't think it should be law to say to ban it completely. I do wonder about the societal impacts that it does have, however. If people weren't so busy fapping to images over the net, maybe they would have a steady girlfriend and some children to raise. Who knows. Everyone is different, I suppose.

[Dejavu]

Ahoj! Vítejte na stránkách skupiny. Učím se česky. Já jen mluví velmi málo. Jsem Chorvat.

[Havet]

Different doesn't mean non-explotive.

Choosing where to work has nothing to do with it. People go to a work place out of their own free will. That doesn't make it less exploitive.

To define Exploitation = Real value of labor - wages

Since exploitation is a non intended consequence of the person who is being exploited, and given that in a mutualist system exploitation would only (rarely) occur if a person so desired, then taking those two premisses we can conclude that such mutualist society would be non-exploitative.

There is a difference between consenting to have a part of the value of your work being removed than if it were removed by force.


How?

If you place restrictions on what a worker can do with the product of his labor, including trade, then you are depriving him of the full benefits of the product of his labor.


Well then your right to own property and to control the means of production, interferes with my right to own that means of production. You have thereby limited my economic freedom.

No, it does not. That proposition may be true in this current capitalist society, but not in a mutualist one, because one class of men are preventing others from self-employing themselves, through governmental privilege granted to capital.

For instance, can you see any competition between the farmer and his hired man? Don't you think he would prefer to work for himself? Why does the farmer employ him? Is it not to make some profit from his labor? And does the hired man give him that profit out of pure good nature? Would he not rather have the full product of his labor at his own disposal?

It follows that if they had access to land and opportunity to capitalize the product of their labor they would either employ themselves, or, if employed by others, their wages, or remuneration, would rise to the full product of their toil, since no one would work for another for less than he could obtain by working for himself.


Additionally you didn't tell me how the market is important to freedom. Just that economic freedom is part of freedom, which means absolutely nothing.

If one is not free to trade, one is not free to enjoy the benefits of other people's labor in the event that they do not wish to share it by creating a commune.

This is essential to understand some of the differences between communism and mutualism. Although both are forms of revolutionary leftism, they drift precisely on how to achieve a better society.

Mutualists have no scheme for regulating distribution. They substitute nothing, make no plans. They trust to the unfailing balance of supply and demand. They say that with equal opportunity to produce, the division of product will necessarily approach equitable distribution, but they have no method of 'enacting' such equalization.


Yes I will deny your method as it is expolitive.

Read above


Nice changing of your entire definition. Well I'll entertain these one's too.

Now then, since its you who carries the burden of proof, tell me how toil cost necessitates trade.

Keep in mind, I've already presented the fact that for 95% of human existance this was not true.

Dude, i never claimed cost necessitates trade.

I just explained that cost does not go away by removing trade.

If you forbid people to trade in a communist society, and place everything as public property (except possessions, that is), will people just wish and then consumer goods will appear out of thin air?

No. The truth is, it would still cost time and labor to produce these items, but such costs would not be represented in monetary terms.

That's what I basically wanted you to understand, which i think you already knew.

[Radical]

I would have no problem with people recording sex scenes, aslong as their not doing it for money. - Same with prostitution.

[Rosa Provokateur]

[First post, hi everyone]

No I do not. I believe it to be a matter of free choice. Pornography is ok in my books. Although it must be kept restricted so as to protect against minors. The age of the internet poses problems there, but as a parent you should be taking measures to make sure that they do no view this. Make passwords, do whatever. But I don't think it should be law to say to ban it completely. I do wonder about the societal impacts that it does have, however. If people weren't so busy fapping to images over the net, maybe they would have a steady girlfriend and some children to raise. Who knows. Everyone is different, I suppose.

Best post on this thread thus far.

[Dejavu]

I would have no problem with people recording sex scenes, aslong as their not doing it for money. - Same with prostitution.

Why not for money? Or you just want free porn? :P

[Jazzratt]

Why not for money? Or you just want free porn? :P

I presume it's because if it was done for money that would involve resurrecting the market and then money (two thing that should be long buried under any kind of socialist world worthy of the name) simply for the production of porn.

[Dejavu]

I presume it's because if it was done for money that would involve resurrecting the market and then money (two thing that should be long buried under any kind of socialist world worthy of the name) simply for the production of porn.

Oh noez. Porn is not produced for its own sake. :laugh: (Porn) production is a means to a greater end. I still think he just wants free porn. ;)

[IcarusAngel]

I don't have a problem with prostitution per se, I have a problem with the capitalist aspects of it. I don't think people should be forced to sell their bodies just to be able to survive, just as I believe people shouldn't be forced into working at Wal-Mart if they don't want to be. All of that is coercion of the market place.

It's no surprise that the worst forms of prostitution and the human traficking programs that spring are up due to market capitalism. Humans are essentially treated like property, with no regulatory or democratic oversight of the institutions. It's pretty disgusting. And this exists in everything, drugs and so on as well.

Anywhere where the market has the upper hand you're going to see certain people get more leverage over others, with frightening results. So, prostitutions (like drugs) is one of those problems that will never really be solved until we have a free-system. Until then, you can only attempt to alleviate the problem, but you will always have quite a bit of 'problems' due to capitalism (even in there Western European countries where drugs are legal they have introduced a whole new set of problems).

[Robert]

I still think he just wants free porn

So he's bargain hunter. Youporn is about as hard as it gets and it's free, though you have to have an internet connection.

So I'm told.

I mean, that's what people say.

[Havet]

So he's bargain hunter. Youporn is about as hard as it gets and it's free, though you have to have an internet connection.

So I'm told.

I mean, that's what people say.

Pornhub eats Youporn for breakfast

[IcarusAngel]

Well then your right to own property and to control the means of production, interferes with my right to own that means of production. You have thereby limited my economic freedom.


No, it does not. That proposition may be true in this current capitalist society, but not in a mutualist one, because one class of men are preventing others from self-employing themselves, through governmental privilege granted to capital.


Wrong. ALL property is a theft of resources from all individuals to one individual, unless of course everybody in the whole world agreed with the 'property ownership.'

Property is different from 'ideas' and other abstract notions that no one can truly 'own' just for that reason; you owning property prevents others from using it, thus, ALL property must be closely monitored.

To claim otherwise is to simply deny reality and is unrealistic. Even taxes are based on the notion that no one 'truly' owns property, and the people who noticed this (many of them classical-liberals) were right.

[Havet]

Wrong. ALL property is a theft of resources from all individuals to one individual, unless of course everybody in the whole world agreed with the 'property ownership.'

Property is different from 'ideas' and other abstract notions that no one can truly 'own' just for that reason; you owning property prevents others from using it, thus, ALL property must be closely monitored.

To claim otherwise is to simply deny reality and is unrealistic. Even taxes are based on the notion that no one 'truly' owns property, and the people who noticed this (many of them classical-liberals) were right.

I was defending (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1592036&postcount=48) possessions actually, not private property.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Pornhub eats Youporn for breakfast

Rockettube ftw:redstar2000:

[Rosa Provokateur]

Oh noez. Porn is not produced for its own sake. :laugh: (Porn) production is a means to a greater end. I still think he just wants free porn. ;)

Who doesn't want free porn!? I mean, porn is probably what the internet is mostly used for; if you can get it for free, that's like a double-wammy.

[Havet]

Who doesn't want free porn!?

Capitalists ^^

[Havet]

Rockettube ftw:redstar2000:

OMG

I was totally not expecting gay porn!!! hahaha

[Robert]

That's like A Double-Wammy.

Well, the denouement was the same, but the actors were different.

[Steve_j]

Prostitution and pornography (in the capitlaist environment) are simply a form of labour, if we detach religious and social dogma from the action there should be nothing wrong (in context of a capitalist concept) with these forms of work.

Thats not to say there arnt issues regarding these forms of labour (like all others), but particularly the degredation of women.

After a socialist revolution (one that that does away with labour) such behaviour will instead be something practiced in a means of a completly voluntary relationship. Ie a couple/individual or group that wants to share his/her or their behaviour with others without the influence of finacial slavery. Whether the supply meets the demand is irrelevant.

So in regards to the op. Who the fuck is anyone to ban this behaviour? People need to have their own say with what they do with their bodies free from influence by the rest of society.

So in short no. Shove your ban and your soviet fetish up your ass, then video tape it and sell it too ensure you pay the morgate on someone elses house.

rant over.. (sorry been drinking :))

[Rosa Provokateur]

OMG

I was totally not expecting gay porn!!! hahaha

Lol that just means we don't talk enough :D

[ChrisK]

Since exploitation is a non intended consequence of the person who is being exploited, and given that in a mutualist system exploitation would only (rarely) occur if a person so desired, then taking those two premisses we can conclude that such mutualist society would be non-exploitative.

There is a difference between consenting to have a part of the value of your work being removed than if it were removed by force.

Bold mine. If it rarely occurs, it still occurs and is therefore explotive. Now explain to me how wouldn't it happen?

How is this any different than capitalism? How are they constenting to you stealing the fruits of their labor in a way different than happens under capitalism?


If you place restrictions on what a worker can do with the product of his labor, including trade, then you are depriving him of the full benefits of the product of his labor.

But wait, if there isn't money and people are just putting things into a location where people just walk in and take what they need/want, how are you losing the benefits of your labor?


No, it does not. That proposition may be true in this current capitalist society, but not in a mutualist one, because one class of men are preventing others from self-employing themselves, through governmental privilege granted to capital.

For instance, can you see any competition between the farmer and his hired man? Don't you think he would prefer to work for himself? Why does the farmer employ him? Is it not to make some profit from his labor? And does the hired man give him that profit out of pure good nature? Would he not rather have the full product of his labor at his own disposal?

It follows that if they had access to land and opportunity to capitalize the product of their labor they would either employ themselves, or, if employed by others, their wages, or remuneration, would rise to the full product of their toil, since no one would work for another for less than he could obtain by working for himself.

How, under mutualism, do people obtain the property to become self-employed?

It seems to me that the missing link is pre-existing capital to puchase such things. Ie, I want my own bit of farm land. Where do I get the seeds, land, timber, plumbing, etc? I would have to already have money for these things. To get the money I'd have to work for someone else, only they pay me less than my full labor's worth so that they can profit off my work. I can then never gain the money to employ myself.

Your mutualism is merely a different form of capitalism.


If one is not free to trade, one is not free to enjoy the benefits of other people's labor in the event that they do not wish to share it by creating a commune.

This is essential to understand some of the differences between communism and mutualism. Although both are forms of revolutionary leftism, they drift precisely on how to achieve a better society.

Mutualists have no scheme for regulating distribution. They substitute nothing, make no plans. They trust to the unfailing balance of supply and demand. They say that with equal opportunity to produce, the division of product will necessarily approach equitable distribution, but they have no method of 'enacting' such equalization.

Lol. I remember this. This is from the Individualist and the Communist.

I said to this part that you have no method of obtaining this. You just wish it into existance.


Read above

Read what I wrote to you months ago.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/individualist-and-communist-t115125/index.html?p=1520478


Dude, i never claimed cost necessitates trade.

I just explained that cost does not go away by removing trade.

If you forbid people to trade in a communist society, and place everything as public property (except possessions, that is), will people just wish and then consumer goods will appear out of thin air?

No. The truth is, it would still cost time and labor to produce these items, but such costs would not be represented in monetary terms.

That's what I basically wanted you to understand, which i think you already knew.

What's the point of even writing that? Of course it will take labor to produce things (or the machines that produce things for us as is already happening).

[Havet]

Bold mine. If it rarely occurs, it still occurs and is therefore explotive. Now explain to me how wouldn't it happen?

You are still confusing consented exploitation and forced exploitation


How is this any different than capitalism? How are they constenting to you stealing the fruits of their labor in a way different than happens under capitalism?

In Capitalism you have no choice other than to become employed and a wage-slave.

Under mutualism there is no governmental privilege granted to capital, and there is equality of opportunity to produce, so a man would not willingly resign a large share of his product to his employer.


But wait, if there isn't money and people are just putting things into a location where people just walk in and take what they need/want, how are you losing the benefits of your labor?

Well, first there is not a need for money. You can always trade things directly, though money is more efficient in a market system.

Second, I first talked of baseball cards, and I was assuming they were extremely valuable or "one of a kind". Certainly you could claim that there could be communal baseball cards machines which created any card a person wished, but that would sort of defeat the point of arguing, because we would be going back to the good ol' property vs possessions argument.


How, under mutualism, do people obtain the property to become self-employed?

It seems to me that the missing link is pre-existing capital to puchase such things. Ie, I want my own bit of farm land. Where do I get the seeds, land, timber, plumbing, etc? I would have to already have money for these things. To get the money I'd have to work for someone else, only they pay me less than my full labor's worth so that they can profit off my work. I can then never gain the money to employ myself.

Your mutualism is merely a different form of capitalism.

If mutual banks of the Proudhonian variety were allowed to issue private banknotes with the output of future production used as collateral, then the capacity for self-employment would be readily available for anyone with marketable skills.

Mutualism is by no means a form of Capitalism. Also, many of the arguments I use in favor of mutualism equally apply to other forms of social market ideologies. See my anarcho-socialist economy (http://www.revleft.com/vb/would-anarcho-socialist-t116765/index.html?t=116765) thread if you're interested.


Lol. I remember this. This is from the Individualist and the Communist.

Yes. And I remmember your pretty red.


I said to this part that you have no method of obtaining this. You just wish it into existance.

Not really.

An authentic free market economics provides the proper path to working class liberation. The removal of state-imposed impediments to economic activity – taxes, regulations, prohibitions, licenses, currency monopoly, patents, subsidies – would naturally result in the dramatic expansion of the quantity and variety of businesses, partnerships and entrepreneurial associations of virtually every kind.

If mutual banks of the Proudhonian variety were allowed to issue private banknotes with the output of future production used as collateral, then the capacity for self-employment would be readily available for anyone with marketable skills. (sorry to be repeating this)

A dramatic increase in the number of businesses and employers would mean that workers would have a much larger number of potential employers to choose from in addition to greatly expanded opportunities for self-employment. This would in turn radically increase the bargaining power of workers in terms of their dealings with employers. The cost of wage labor would increase as the market for employees became drastically more competitive.

Workers in large-scale industrial operations would have the option of demanding the right of self-management if they so desired and, given the expanded availability of credit and capital, workers would be able to buy out capitalists and essentially become their own employers. So the dominant forms of economic organization in an authentic free market would be worker-owned and operated industries, partnerships, cooperatives, a mass of small businesses, modestly sized private companies and self-employed persons.

Industries that remained nominally owned by outside shareholders would largely function on a co-determined basis, that is, as partnerships between shareholders and labor with labor having the upper hand.(8 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.anti-state.com/article.php?article_id=316#8)) So the traditional anarcho-syndicalist ideal of an industrial system owned and operated by the workers could, for the most part, be achieved in the context of a stateless free market.


Read what I wrote to you months ago.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/individualist-and-communist-t115125/index.html?p=1520478

Like I said, I remmember your arguments. When I re-checked my old thread I made sure I read your arguments, and I think my rebuttal here will be a direct reply to any possible arguments you posted back then.


What's the point of even writing that? Of course it will take labor to produce things (or the machines that produce things for us as is already happening).

The point was that you seemed to not understand that concept. But I knew you knew. You were just confused and calling it a different thing - semantics ;)

[Havet]

Lol that just means we don't talk enough :D

So this means you have a sexual interest in male humans? That's awesome. I never met someone with such sexual tendencies.

Sorry to be a bit stereotypical in my questions, but have you ever been attracted to women? is it the same thing as being attracted to men?

Recently I have radically changed my personal view, especially because of this awesome post:


The way I approach things now, I'm not attracted to men, I'm not attracted to women, I'm attracted to people, irrelevant of sex, gender, species, and race.

I have a personal bias toward "male" and "female" instead of "man" and "woman". "Man" means more than just "human with a penis". It implies masculinity. The same holds for "woman". I really prefer the more concise terms "male" and "female". They're so concise that engineers use them to describe interfacing components.

There's certain things I like about masculinity. Strength, toughness, confidence, productivity, I like those sorts of things. There's also things I like about femininity. Compassion, nurturing, teaching, I like those. There's things I dislike about both, too. Aggressiveness, passivity, arrogance, dependence, those sorts of things. I like strong, confident, independent females as much as males, and compassionate, caring males as much as females. But lumping these characteristics all into two piles and calling them "masculine" and "feminine" seems stupid to me. The only thing that strength and productivity have in common with each other and don't have in common with nurturing and teaching is that two are associated with manly men and two are associated with womanly women.

I like people who are content to just be people, and just be their natural, honest, free, independent selves.

This just says it all in my opinion :)

[Steve_j]

Recently I have radically changed my personal view

:D Best post ive read all day.

[Rosa Provokateur]

So this means you have a sexual interest in male humans? That's awesome. I never met someone with such sexual tendencies.

Sorry to be a bit stereotypical in my questions, but have you ever been attracted to women? is it the same thing as being attracted to men?



Yeah, I'm not into beastiality or anything gross like that lol. Glad I'm the first one, although I wouldn't call it tendency... sounds too scientific.

I tried dating a girl once when I was in 8th grade and then again when I was a junior in highschool but it never really clicked for me. When I was 14 (the major sexual awakening of my life) I would look at girls because that's what my friends did and it's what was expected. Then I slowly started to notice guys more and more till it just clicked.

I don't know if it's the same for me as it is for you being attracted to women; I prefer more feminine guys (nothing deep meant by that: there are masculine gays and feminine gays, I'm more masculine a.k.a. a "top") but at the same time could never see myself in a serious relationship with a girl and don't really ever plan to try. I've met someone and even though it's still fresh, I think it's gonna last a long time :cool:

[Rosa Provokateur]

:D Best post ive read all day.

Maybe; pansexuals are cool and all but they get way too deep when it comes to all that stuff. Not saying that it shouldn't be discussed, it should. I just hate it because then I have to be more specific and it fucks with my vocab.

[RGacky3]

So this means you have a sexual interest in male humans? That's awesome.

I've never heard a sexual orientation being called "awesome".


The way I approach things now, I'm not attracted to men, I'm not attracted to women, I'm attracted to people, irrelevant of sex, gender, species, and race.

I have a personal bias toward "male" and "female" instead of "man" and "woman". "Man" means more than just "human with a penis". It implies masculinity. The same holds for "woman". I really prefer the more concise terms "male" and "female". They're so concise that engineers use them to describe interfacing components.

There's certain things I like about masculinity. Strength, toughness, confidence, productivity, I like those sorts of things. There's also things I like about femininity. Compassion, nurturing, teaching, I like those. There's things I dislike about both, too. Aggressiveness, passivity, arrogance, dependence, those sorts of things. I like strong, confident, independent females as much as males, and compassionate, caring males as much as females. But lumping these characteristics all into two piles and calling them "masculine" and "feminine" seems stupid to me. The only thing that strength and productivity have in common with each other and don't have in common with nurturing and teaching is that two are associated with manly men and two are associated with womanly women.

I like people who are content to just be people, and just be their natural, honest, free, independent selves.

So your bisexual but you get philisophicah about it .... :confused:. Your attracted to people? Thats just a fancy way of saying your bisexual.

Also masculine characteristics ARE a lot more common in men and Feminine characteristics ARE more common in women, because men have more testosterone, and women have more estrogen.

[Radical]

Why not for money? Or you just want free porn? :P

haha. Sorry but if Pornstars wernt payed to get naked, I dont think they'd be very many left.

[Angry Young Man]

Yeah I figure people will still trade shit though. Someone will bake a cake and someone else will say "hey i'll sleep with you for some of that cake".

Sort of a weird situation I know.

Does that mean old ladies will become the sex symbols of communist society?

Anyway, I think people will be willing to exchange gifts for sex. What needs to be paid attention to is pimping - which, if Marx wrote a dictionary, would have a near-identical definition as private property.

As for pornography, there's a vast bank of it on the internet, including amateur. Therefore, people might make porn as a hobby.

[Robert]

Yeah I figure people will still trade shit though. Someone will bake a cake and someone else will say "hey i'll sleep with you for some of that cake".


That's a half-baked idea. Where's the profit in a straight up trade?

Doh!

[Havet]

I've never heard a sexual orientation being called "awesome".

I just think the concept is awesome because I never had a chance to talk to someone who had that view


So your bisexual but you get philisophicah about it .... :confused:. Your attracted to people? Thats just a fancy way of saying your bisexual.

No i'm not bisexual. Just because I like some predominantly male traits does not mean I want to have sex with males. I remain heterosexual because that is my natural tendency, and I never showed any interest in male people to a point where I would want to have sexual relationships.


Also masculine characteristics ARE a lot more common in men and Feminine characteristics ARE more common in women, because men have more testosterone, and women have more estrogen.

Sure, everybody knows that

[Havet]

Yeah, I'm not into beastiality or anything gross like that lol. Glad I'm the first one, although I wouldn't call it tendency... sounds too scientific.

I tried dating a girl once when I was in 8th grade and then again when I was a junior in highschool but it never really clicked for me. When I was 14 (the major sexual awakening of my life) I would look at girls because that's what my friends did and it's what was expected. Then I slowly started to notice guys more and more till it just clicked.

I don't know if it's the same for me as it is for you being attracted to women; I prefer more feminine guys (nothing deep meant by that: there are masculine gays and feminine gays, I'm more masculine a.k.a. a "top") but at the same time could never see myself in a serious relationship with a girl and don't really ever plan to try. I've met someone and even though it's still fresh, I think it's gonna last a long time :cool:

Thanks for the input, and I hope everything goes well with your relationship :)

[Dejavu]

Hayen likes men.

[Havet]

Hayen likes men.

Heh. For anyone else confused, here's my final say on the subject:

I like people independent of race, sex, age, etc

I love people independent of race, sex, age, etc

I don't have sexual desires independent of sex and age.

[RGacky3]

Just because I like some predominantly male traits does not mean I want to have sex with males.

Then your attracted to women ... am I missing something here? If you don't want to have sex with men, but only women, then your heterosexual.


Sure, everybody knows that

Ok maybe I was missing the point.


I like people independent of race, sex, age, etc

I love people independent of race, sex, age, etc

I don't have sexual desires independent of sex and age.

Ok so your a normal hederosexual male, nothing special here :P.

[Bud Struggle]

Ok so your a normal hederosexual male, nothing special here :P.

Glad we got that straightened up--now we can move on with the conversation. :D

[Robert]

If you don't want to have sex with men, but only women, then your heterosexual.



Dr. Gack, I hope you're licensed to be giving out all this sex advice.

Quack.

That's just onomatopoeia (http://www.revleft.com/vb/Glad%20we%20got%20that%20straightened%20up--now%20we%20can%20move%20on%20with%20the%20conversa tion.) to go with my avater. I'm not accusing you of quackery.

[Robert]

Oops. I did it again.

Britney

[Jazzratt]

Drag this clusterfuck back to some sembelance of topic or it's warning all around and you're going to bed without any supper.

[SouthernBelle82]

Depends on your socialist. Prostitution would not exist in a communist society due to proffessions no longer existing. But you'd really have to define pornography. I find movie studio pornography to be explotive (like all other businesses) and therefore wrong. However, I see no problem with people taping themselves having sex or whatever and distributing it. But thats just me.

I agree with you. However what about underage and all that?

[The Feral Underclass]

Prostitution should be banned, yes. I think you'll find very broad agreement on that issue among socialists and communists, for the very simple reason that - no matter what we think of sex - prostitution is a capitalist enterprise.

Prostitution existed in ancient civilisations. It pre-dates capitalism.

[The Feral Underclass]

There are some moralist assumptions in this thread, namely that prostitution is something that women get forced into without having any choice. This is totally not the case. While there are obviously examples of women being forcibly exploited for sex, there is a flourishing sex industry and one which is increasingly becoming mroe and more controlled by the women that work in them. The English Collective of Prostitutes for example is an unrecognised union of women who are perfectly happy with their jobs, but demand greater control and less persecution.

The assumption that women who are prostitutes are some how incapable of doing anything else that's why they're "forced" into being prostitutes is incredibly offensive and this moralist attitude is part of the actual problem. These women don't need or want our pity or social conservative moralism, they simply want to be recognised as legitimate workers and respected.

[Bud Struggle]

The assumption that women who are prostitutes are some how incapable of doing anything else that's why they're "forced" into being prostitutes is incredibly offensive and this moralist attitude is part of the actual problem. These women don't need or want our pity or social conservative moralism, they simply want to be recognised as legitimate workers and respected.

That's pretty interesting and it certainly goes against what I've always believed. (And maybe it's just the way I've been programed by society to understand the situation.)

I actually think there are all sorts of prostitutes--some forced to work in that field by circumstances and oppression and --and some blythfully doing it for fun and profit. I guess what a Communist society needs to do is sort out those that are oppressed from those that work for the enjoyment of the profession and move on from there.

[Robert]

These women don't need or want our pity or social conservative moralism, they simply want to be recognised as legitimate workers and respected.

I agree, provided they are women and not children (though at what age do you draw the line? 16? 17? 18?) and provided they really are self owners and not the chattel of some pimp, the ugliest kind of capitalist.

I call for prison time for any pimp, and very hard time if he is pimping children, which I would define as age 16 and below. Prisons presuppose the existence a state. Now and forever.

[Rosa Provokateur]

I don't advocate or defend prostitution but I think, were it not for pimps, it wouldn't be as bad as it is.

[Bud Struggle]

I don't advocate or defend prostitution but I think, were it not for pimps, it wouldn't be as bad as it is.

Pimps are the Bourgeois and the prostitutes are the Proletarian workers. You couldn't get a clearer analogy for the Capitalist system.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Pimps are the Bourgeois and the prostitutes are the Proletarian workers. You couldn't get a clearer analogy for the Capitalist system.

That's actually pretty good; I'm planning on starting an Anarchism 101 course on my campus and I'll be sure to throw that analogy in there:)

[Rosa Provokateur]

These women don't need or want our pity or social conservative moralism, they simply want to be recognised as legitimate workers and respected.

This too is an assumption; perhaps not all of them are unhappy with their line of work but it's reasonable to believe that most are. Prostitution is unhealthy, unsafe, and has the potential to be extremely destructive. We shouldn't persecute prostitutes but we should do what we can to combat it's expansion and aid those who want out in getting out as well as eliminate the existence of pimpery.

[The Feral Underclass]

This too is an assumption; perhaps not all of them are unhappy with their line of work but it's reasonable to believe that most are.

Why is it reasonable?


Prostitution is unhealthy, unsafe, and has the potential to be extremely destructive.

Why? What are you basing these assumptions on?

[turquino]

Wage labourers and prostitutes don't face the same oppression. Wage labourers are alienated from the products of their labour. Capitalists purchase the labour power of their workers, whom are useful insofar as they work to expand capital.

The alienation of the prostitute is qualitatively different from that of the worker. Prostitutes don't simply sell their labour power; instead they rent the use of their physical person for sex. This necessarily entails the alienation of one's person.

The worker's labour power is purchased for the capitalist to appropriate its products, while the prostitute's product for purchase is their own body. The condition of the former can be ended by the abolition of wage labour, but the condition of the latter belongs to it by its very nature.

In my view there's no place for prostitution in a project that aims to end humanity's domination by itself.

[Bud Struggle]

The worker's labour power is purchased for the capitalist to appropriate its products, while the prostitute's product for purchase is their own body. The condition of the former can be ended by the abolition of wage labour, but the condition of the latter belongs to it by its very nature.


But it seems that your assumption is that a prostitute works against her will. If it is something that does of her own volition for her own reasons--how is there any alienation?

Personally though I think that without a profit motive 99.999% of prostitution will dissappear. Prostitution is the quintessential Capitalist endeavour.

[ChrisK]

Sorry this response took so long work and school are a little chaotic right now.


You are still confusing consented exploitation and forced exploitation

In Capitalism you have no choice other than to become employed and a wage-slave.

Under mutualism there is no governmental privilege granted to capital, and there is equality of opportunity to produce, so a man would not willingly resign a large share of his product to his employer.

You have yet to explain the governmental privilege granted to capital beyond what simply exists. You have yet to explain how a person would gain the means to produce in mutualism beyond saying that they can if they want to. Strangely I can do that in capitalism too. All I have to do is buy a space and equipment etc and start selling.


Well, first there is not a need for money. You can always trade things directly, though money is more efficient in a market system.

And where did you get things to trade? Did they magically appear?


Second, I first talked of baseball cards, and I was assuming they were extremely valuable or "one of a kind". Certainly you could claim that there could be communal baseball cards machines which created any card a person wished, but that would sort of defeat the point of arguing, because we would be going back to the good ol' property vs possessions argument.

Well now we're back into communism. One-of-a-kind items aren't going to have value in a communist society. The value placed on these cards in a capitalist (or mutualist) society comes from one thing (beyond the cost of material to make cards) labor. The scarcity is even produced by the labor. If these cards have value only so far as labor grants it under capitalism, then such a value would not exist under a communist society where value on that level is abholished.

Now, at the point in which labor value does not exist, then how can one lose the benefits of labor?


If mutual banks of the Proudhonian variety were allowed to issue private banknotes with the output of future production used as collateral, then the capacity for self-employment would be readily available for anyone with marketable skills.

Mutualism is by no means a form of Capitalism. Also, many of the arguments I use in favor of mutualism equally apply to other forms of social market ideologies. See my anarcho-socialist economy (http://www.revleft.com/vb/would-anarcho-socialist-t116765/index.html?t=116765) thread if you're interested.

As I recall about mutual credit it is the idea that a bank should be able to print its own bank note and that it should be interest free for loans. Well, I'll brush up on mutual credit before I respond. Sorry, you'll have to wait a bit (like after finals), but I promise to respond. And thank you for the link.


Yes. And I remmember your pretty red.

Can't lie I liked your piece quite a bit. It was a fun read (but you really did make the commie a silly silly person).


Not really.

An authentic free market economics provides the proper path to working class liberation. The removal of state-imposed impediments to economic activity – taxes, regulations, prohibitions, licenses, currency monopoly, patents, subsidies – would naturally result in the dramatic expansion of the quantity and variety of businesses, partnerships and entrepreneurial associations of virtually every kind.

If mutual banks of the Proudhonian variety were allowed to issue private banknotes with the output of future production used as collateral, then the capacity for self-employment would be readily available for anyone with marketable skills. (sorry to be repeating this)

A dramatic increase in the number of businesses and employers would mean that workers would have a much larger number of potential employers to choose from in addition to greatly expanded opportunities for self-employment. This would in turn radically increase the bargaining power of workers in terms of their dealings with employers. The cost of wage labor would increase as the market for employees became drastically more competitive.

Workers in large-scale industrial operations would have the option of demanding the right of self-management if they so desired and, given the expanded availability of credit and capital, workers would be able to buy out capitalists and essentially become their own employers. So the dominant forms of economic organization in an authentic free market would be worker-owned and operated industries, partnerships, cooperatives, a mass of small businesses, modestly sized private companies and self-employed persons.

Industries that remained nominally owned by outside shareholders would largely function on a co-determined basis, that is, as partnerships between shareholders and labor with labor having the upper hand.(8 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.anti-state.com/article.php?article_id=316#8)) So the traditional anarcho-syndicalist ideal of an industrial system owned and operated by the workers could, for the most part, be achieved in the context of a stateless free market.

Okay, I'll need some time to reply to this. But I shall do so in the near future. Sorry for responding late and then putting the major points on hold for a bit.