Prostitution

[X5N]

I'm not familiar with the arguments from the radical left against prostitution. I sort of get the gist of it, but not really. So, would anyone care to enlighten me?

[Ostrinski]

The left is actually pretty divided on the issue.

[Rafiq]

I mean, what about it is of interest to you?

[Let's Get Free]

Prostitution exploits poor, desperate men who can't get laid.

[Ostrinski]

Prostitution exploits poor, desperate men who can't get laid.Is this a joke? What about the people actually exploited in the prostitution process i.e. the prostitutes themselves?

[Let's Get Free]

Is this a joke?

It was a joke.

[Comrade #138672]

Prostitution exists because the poorest women are forced to do it under Capitalism.

[l'Enfermé]

Why should it be a divisive issue? Prostitutes make up a tiny and insignificant fraction of a fraction of the population.

[Art Vandelay]

Well personally I'm not in the business of reforming capitalism, so I don't really understand why this topic reappears so much; once society has become a collection of free producers, money abolished, etc...prostitution will become impossible.

[Ostrinski]

Why should it be a divisive issue? Prostitutes make up a tiny and insignificant fraction of a fraction of the population.It is a divisive issue because there are different positions and opinions on it.

And I think it's safe to say there are much more trivial issues on the left that are divisive than prostitution.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Is this a joke? What about the people actually exploited in the prostitution process i.e. the prostitutes themselves?

:rolleyes:

This thread again?

[Ostrinski]

I think we need to have a huge sticky of over-talked about subjects i.e. prostitution

[Blake's Baby]

:rolleyes:

This thread again?

This one's in Learning. The other one's in OI. Hopefully this will be more intelligent than the 'herp the derp, you're a moron because...' OI thread. Not that I'm saying I wasn't responsible for some of the herpy-derpity.

[Sasha]

"The problem with the sex-industry is that its a industry" [/end thread]

[PC LOAD LETTER]

Yeah, what psycho said. An additional problem is that it's an illegal industry in most places, subjecting the women (and, less commonly - men) involved to horrible conditions, abuse and violence, a high incidence of rape, high risk of contracting disease, sometimes outright slavery.

I don't see why prostitution wouldn't exist post-revolution, it would be just another job ... ? And much safer for those involved.

[Sasha]

Well personally I'm not in the business of reforming capitalism, so I don't really understand why this topic reappears so much; once society has become a collection of free producers, money abolished, etc...prostitution will become impossible.

Wut??
I'm afraid that sex will remain one of the few comodities that will never know a post-scarcity situation. In a communist society sex will be, as it always have been among humanity (and is also among all other social animals) one of the few remaining (and probably the primary) things to barter with.
As revolutionaries its our duty to strive that the balance will be more to people giving a service out of free will towards people who need it (like we here in the Netherlands have where a pool of semi-volunteers that service handicaped/sick people and get compensated for this by society) and not end up in a burocratic caste system where one can prostitute themselves to get favors or essentials.

[Blake's Baby]

Barter with? What could someone offer in exchange that wasn't freely available anyway?

"Fuck me and you can have this bicycle"

Answer 1 - "No, I don't need a bicycle"
Answer 2 - "Why? I can just get that bicycle"
Answer 3 - "OK, but don't worry about the bicycle"

I suppose you could offer to do stuff if people will have sex with you. Like, mow the lawn for them or paint the house. Fuck me, socialism's starting to sound like marriage.

[Sasha]

Barter with? What could someone offer in exchange that wasn't freely available anyway?

"Fuck me and you can have this bicycle"

Answer 1 - "No, I don't need a bicycle"
Answer 2 - "Why? I can just get that bicycle"
Answer 3 - "OK, but don't worry about the bicycle"

I suppose you could offer to do stuff if people will have sex with you. Like, mow the lawn for them or paint the house. Fuck me, socialism's starting to sound like marriage.

coalition building? Among chimps its not the strongest and biggest who are necessary the alpha male nor alpha female, it are the best politicians/coalition brokers.

[l'Enfermé]

Hahahaha so psycho prefers selling your vagina in "communism" over selling your labour-power in capitalism. Guess we have different definitions of what dignity is. While we're regressing into chimp-like behavior I say let's start throwing feces at each other while we're at it.

[Leroy Brown]

"Fuck me and you can have this bicycle"

Answer 1 - "No, I don't need a bicycle"
Answer 2 - "Why? I can just get that bicycle"
Answer 3 - "OK, but don't worry about the bicycle"


Remember "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs)"?

You're forgetting the first part of the slogan and assuming all we will do after the revolution is "ride bicycles" (consume shit and enjoy commodities). There will also be work to be done, "from each according to his ability."

See the possibilities now?

[Catma]

See the possibilities now?No, I don't. What possibilities? "Fuck me and I'll do your job for you."? That's almost as ridiculous as trading bicycles for sex.

[Sasha]

@ le enferme
No I don't, I just don't believe in magic, like so many of our current behaviors (especially) prostitution won't disappear over night, the abolition of money won't end bartering, the abolition of employers doesn't mean we shouldn't be on constant guard against new bosses assuming power.
Access to our body, being the one commodity everyone will always posesses is something we do now and will continue to do so from time to time employ for other motives than just to give and receive pleasure or express affection.
But I guess you would just fix that with some cultural revolution or re-education...

Also there are 49.5 % of humanity that can (and will) prostitute themselves who dont have a vagina, sexist...

[Sasha]

No, I don't. What possibilities? "Fuck me and I'll do your job for you."? That's almost as ridiculous as trading bicycles for sex.

Some people need sex, other people can give sex.
Not everybody will get automatically get laid after the revolution, almost everybody will still want to, if capitalism can't root out prostitution give me one reason how communism can.

So in communism we better strife to a system where sex-"work" is just another function that one can choose to supply our communal society with in exchange for the products and services of the rest of us than create an "black market" for it.

[l'Enfermé]

Comrade I won't believe for a second that there will be a necessity to prostitute oneself in a communist society of "free associated producers" where the means of production are socialized. I don't think that communism is something worth fighting for if widespread sexual exploitation is possible in a communist society. I don't know what communism is if not a dignified existence for everyone.

As for the vagina thing, male prostitution is very uncommon(excluding the trade in boy sex slaves like in Afghanistan and Pakistan right now and such), currently and historically.

[doesn't even make sense]

Some people need sex, other people can give sex. Not everybody will get automatically get laid after the revolution, almost everybody will still want to,

This reasoning strikes me as rather liberal-capitalist. Anyhow, there are two parties in this commodity exchange. If the demand is there but the would-be supplier has no incentive whatsoever then there will be no deal. Why would a communist "prostitute" with absolutely nothing to gain from it agree to sex in the first place? Altruism? That's not prostitution, that's a pity-fuck.


if capitalism can't root out prostitution give me one reason how communism can.


The total absence of commodity exchange would make prostitution, strictly speaking, impossible. Perhaps people would use sex to secure other things like personal favors but I think calling that prostitution just creates pointless confusion.

Prostitution is an economic and political phenomenon, not some irreducible aspect of human behavior. The possibility or tendency for people at times to have sex to achieve some other goal isn't enough. For prostitution to exist you need to have the structural factors in place that allow the exchange of sex for commodities.

[Art Vandelay]

I guess then, Pyscho, that you think prostitution exists among animals?

[bcbm]

if capitalism can't root out prostitution give me one reason how communism can.

the destruction of property and morality will free sexuality from the shackles class society has held it in for 10000 years and we will see a return to other modes of human sexual activity where it is simply an enjoyable activity that strengthens group cohesion and is practiced frequently by all with many partners

[Sasha]

I guess then, Pyscho, that you think prostitution exists among animals?

Trading sex for favors does.

Look, I never said prostitution in its dominant current form would continue (it will under a burocratic state-capitalist system, even if said system would abolish money) but even in a true communist society it will continue in some form. Like mentioned we have here in the Netherlands a prostitution service for the handicapped and chronically ill, the men and women doing that (while getting some minimal financial compensation from the state) do it because they find it important social work and they enjoy making people happy. Many have a "normal" primary job. As long as there are people willing to provide services like that we should stimulate that, and not just for the clearly handicapped.
Of course the fast majority of those working in capitalist prostitution would not want to do it under communism, but some still would, maybe some people who wouldnt do it under capitalism even will occasionally under communism. I for one would at least entertain the idea.
its like porn, of course we won't have a porn industry like we do have now, but there will still be porn made.

[Blake's Baby]

It's not like porn, in that porn can be a commodity produced under conditions of exploitation of surplus value, or it can be produced and distributed for free. It's still porn, because 'pornography' refers to the object produced (photos, video images etc).

Prostitution is a specific social relationship. What prostitution 'produces' is sexual intercourse (of one form or another). Now I'm happy to agree that sex will still exist after the revolution (just as porn will still exist after the revolution) but I think that the sex that exists will be 'amateur sex' just as the porn that exists will be 'amateur porn'. There will be no 'porn industry' and there will be no 'sex industry' - ie, no prostitution (that specific social form of trading sex for commodities).

[Rottenfruit]

I'm not familiar with the arguments from the radical left against prostitution. I sort of get the gist of it, but not really. So, would anyone care to enlighten me?
My view is it should be legal, keeping it illegal stimgitaes and makes it more dangerous for prostitutes so having it legal is better like it would be better for drugs to be legal

[X5N]

Er...

What I'd actually like to know more about, is the argument that it enforces patriarchy and whatnot. Are there any books, articles on the matter?

[LiberationTheologist]

Well personally I'm not in the business of reforming capitalism, so I don't really understand why this topic reappears so much; once society has become a collection of free producers, money abolished, etc...prostitution will become impossible.


Ya it will become impossible when that new moneyless socialist society appears! Say, when will that be?


Funny how you call it the "business of reforming capitalism"; when we are talking about reforming society no matter what the prevailing economic system is called. Your statement leads me to believe that you are in agreement that people should be put in cages for selling, trading or buying sex.

[Blake's Baby]

Ya it will become impossible when that new moneyless socialist society appears! Say, when will that be?


Funny how you call it the "business of reforming capitalism"; when we are talking about reforming society no matter what the prevailing economic system is called. Your statement leads me to believe that you are in agreement that people should be put in cages for selling, trading or buying sex.

Well that's a bit of stupid assumption, if you don't mind me saying so, or even if you do. Funny how you read a rejection of capitalism as support for it. Your statement leads me to believe you're a chump who can't read.

The new 'moneyless socialist society' will appear after the successful conclusion of the proletarian revolution. When this happens, the notion of 'commodity exchange for sex' will be impossible as there will be no commodities to exchange that a sex-worker couldn't get anyway. No-one will need to trade goods for sex as they'll be able to get the goods without trading sex for them. Therefore, 'prostitution' (trading sex for commodities) will cease to exist.

As we are 'supposed' to be revolutionaries, not reformists, it's not our 'business' to conjour nostrums for the reform of capitalism. If you think it is, I suggest you go and be a liberal somewhere else.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

And what will the prostitutes do to counter the threat of the freely available realistic sex-robots that make them no longer able to barter their bodies for bikes or as some nonsensical social service?

[LiberationTheologist]

And what will the prostitutes do to counter the threat of the freely available realistic sex-robots that make them no longer able to barter their bodies for bikes or as some nonsensical social service?

There is nothing like the real thing. People will still want to gain favors and material things and trade is one way. A moneyless society is a utopian dream, there will be some medium of exchange.

[Questionable]

There is nothing like the real thing. People will still want to gain favors and material things and trade is one way. A moneyless society is a utopian dream, there will be some medium of exchange.

Why are you here if you say stuff like this? Judging by the posts you've made so far your name should be "LiberalTheologist."

[LiberationTheologist]

Well that's a bit of stupid assumption, if you don't mind me saying so, or even if you do. Funny how you read a rejection of capitalism as support for it. Your statement leads me to believe you're a chump who can't read.


The new 'moneyless socialist society' will appear after the successful conclusion of the proletarian revolution. When this happens, the notion of 'commodity exchange for sex' will be impossible as there will be no commodities to exchange that a sex-worker couldn't get anyway. No-one will need to trade goods for sex as they'll be able to get the goods without trading sex for them. Therefore, 'prostitution' (trading sex for commodities) will cease to exist.

As we are 'supposed' to be revolutionaries, not reformists, it's not our 'business' to conjour nostrums for the reform of capitalism. If you think it is, I suggest you go and be a liberal somewhere else.


I read and understood quite well which is why I disagree. I don't believe the idea that society will ever get rid of money or at least some medium of exchange will ever happen, it is to my mind a utopian idea. It is also utopian to believe that wants will be so fully met that trading sex for money, goods or favors will ever cease to happen.

The main reason for my criticism though was that so many proclaimed marxists take for granted this idea that a proletarian political revolution will somehow occur without there being social revolution before hand. The control of sex, prostitution especially empowers the state even more and makes any underclass revolution that much more less likely. Prohibition of prostitution is just one major socially oppressive control that inhibits political revolution. How in the world can we conceive of a social revolution which is what Marx says capitalism is, a social relationship (someone feel free to go correct me or go more in depth on this) without a plan to even get from A to B.

So yes I do propose reform, radical reform of social/economic laws and if you think that makes me liberal I would counter that your position on not taking radical reforms is obstructionist to real revolution, in this case.

The "no reform revolutionaries" in my opinion, and I believe a wealth of history shows this, have made it difficult for communist and socialist parties to gain mass acceptance. This is not the only reason but it is one important hindrance.

By the way let me post the definition to nostrum because that is a decent word which describes a lot of what naive "after the proletarian revolution is complete" followers prescribe - inaction. We need revolution here and now not later.

nostrum


noun 1. a medicine sold with false or exaggerated claims and with no demonstrable value; quack medicine.

2. a scheme, theory, device, etc., especially one to remedy social or political ills; panacea.

3. a medicine made by the person who recommends it.

[LiberationTheologist]

Why are you here if you say stuff like this? Judging by the posts you've made so far your name should be "LiberalTheologist."

I'm here because I am a revolutionary. Are you aware of the name of this site or not? I am a non dogmatic non brainwashed revolutionary who likes to consider and question things as fully as I can and take into consideration past and current social and political realities.

I just read Emma Goldman was once against reform of the work week into an 8 hour day because she was pushing for the overthrow of capitalism. That is a situation analogous to what me and the other poster are talking about- real radical reform vs pushing for a large revolution which will likely never come. You know why the change will likely never come? The capitalists have found the sweet spot of where they can squeeze the workers, feed them all kinds of propaganda and divide them and because so called revolutionaries who are not doing anything revolutionary will not take on real radical/revolutionary reform that will bring people to their side in the class war. Do you think an 8 hour day was revolutionary compared to a previous 10 hour day for workers? Please explain your answer at length.

Ok now lets apply it to the topic at hand. Do you think the right to legally trade and sell sex is revolutionary? Why or why not. I can fully explain my answer can you?

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

Whatever happened to good old fashioned castrismo enforcement of stringent (and some might say) excessive enforcement of morality? If pawn brokers, cops et al. are reactionary, why isn't a profession that literally subjagates a person for monetary gain acceptable?

ps

Just a question to get a feel for this site. I HAVE NO INTEREST IN BRANDING prostitutes (or "hoes if you're either A) against them or B) really working class and moderately ign't) with the scarlet letter

[#FF0000]

Whatever happened to good old fashioned castrismo enforcement of stringent (and some might say) excessive enforcement of morality? If pawn brokers, cops et al. are reactionary, why isn't a profession that literally subjagates a person for monetary gain acceptable?

Pawn brokers are reactionary?

Cops are the sword n shield of the bosses.

Meanwhile prostitutes are people who have sex for money. People who do this willingly (as willingly as one can do anything under capitalism) ought to be allowed to do it. Of course as other people mentioned, the vast, vast majority of prostitutes don't do it because they want to, and that is obviously reprehensible.

Who are prostitutes subjugating? Are you sure you aren't talking about pimps?

[Questionable]

I'm here because I am a revolutionary. Are you aware of the name of this site or not? I am a non dogmatic non brainwashed revolutionary who likes to consider and question things as fully as I can and take into consideration past and current social and political realities.

Oh this is cute, I love it when people who have registered a few days ago and have 23 posts try to treat me like I'm the uneducated one, especially little shitheads like you that believe in human nature.

No one's impressed by your shit. We get kids like you all the time talking about "non-brainwashed" they are because they subscribe to watered-down liberal Marxism instead of Scientific Marxism. But please, keep talking about how how we're all brainwashed and dogmatic because we accept dialectical and historical materialism. There are plenty of materialists here who would be willing to discuss the matter with you.


I just read Emma Goldman was once against reform of the work week into an 8 hour day because she was pushing for the overthrow of capitalism. That is a situation analogous to what me and the other poster are talking about- real radical reform vs pushing for a large revolution which will likely never come.So then you're not a revolutionary. Why is this guy's not restricted? You just admitted to being a reformist. Regardless, I don't agree with Emma Goldman and I would personally support the workers in their efforts to shorten the work day. I know many socialist organizations that would be willing to help. You're trying to ascribe viewpoints to me that I don't even have. Waste of time.


You know why the change will likely never come? The capitalists have found the sweet spot of where they can squeeze the workers, feed them all kinds of propaganda and divide them and because so called revolutionaries who are not doing anything revolutionary will not take on real radical/revolutionary reform that will bring people to their side in the class war. Do you think an 8 hour day was revolutionary compared to a previous 10 hour day for workers? Please explain your answer at length.I can't really write a lengthy answer because I'm not really sure what the fuck you're even talking about. You're just ranting and raving about work day hours and how the revolutionaries aren't doing anything. Anyway, there are plenty of revolutionary groups who are currently active. You won't find much discussion about that on the internet because most people prefer discussing theory and history here. However, I should point out that reforms are not "revolutionary." They do nothing to hinder the capitalist relations of production, you've just changed them around a little bit but they still dominate. I would support the workers to shorten the working day but I would realize the limits of a reform.


Ok now lets apply it to the topic at hand. Do you think the right to legally trade and sell sex is revolutionary? Why or why not. I can fully explain my answer can you?Ohh, I'm shaking in my boots! The reformist liberal is going to rock my world with his groundbreaking theories! Watch out, Revleft, LiberationTheologist (lol theologist) is about to blow away the likes of Rafiq, Paul Cockshott, Jimmie Higgins, and all other materialists with a shitload more experience than him!

No, I do not think creating a new capitalist industry is revolutionary, and you're a moron if you think so. Trading and selling of ANYTHING is capitalism, not revolutionary.

[hetz]

Have any of you pro-prostitution folks ever actually talked to a real prostitute?
Well I did and I can tell you that it's heartbreaking.
You don't know what horrors these poor women go through.
Prostitution is barbarous.

[Regicollis]

They are called sex workers for a reason. Like any other kinds of workers their conditions will not improve through the well-meaning charity of hat ladies, nor through moralistic legislation and certainly not through libertarian lawlessness. The only way sex workers can improve their conditions is through a collective labour struggle. As revolutionaries we should support rights for sex workers as we support rights for other workers.

In the short run while we are waiting for the revolution we should offer our support for sex workers who are fighting to improve workplace safety, salaries etc. It is however the sex workers alone who should formulate demands. We should help them, not patronise them with our ideas on how things should be.

Talking about how things will be after the revolution is a bit like fortune telling; equal parts wishful thinking and guesswork. However I don't find it impossible that some sort of sex work would continue to exist on a voluntary base (as with any other kinds of work in a free society).

I'm not convinced that we will ever reach post-scarcity. There will always be a limited supply of luxuries. Thus there will still be a base for prostitution in a free society. However in a free society everyone will have the necessities of life as well as a fair amount of luxuries so the amount of prostitution is going to be negligible.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

Something tells me you're the sheep in Animal Farm (the book can be seen as a critique of both soviet "communism" and capitalism)

[#FF0000]

Have any of you pro-prostitution folks ever actually talked to a real prostitute?

but yo what i am saying is based on what actual sex workers have written.

not every sex worker works under the same conditions.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

Pawn brokers are reactionary?

Cops are the sword n shield of the bosses.

Meanwhile prostitutes are people who have sex for money. People who do this willingly (as willingly as one can do anything under capitalism) ought to be allowed to do it. Of course as other people mentioned, the vast, vast majority of prostitutes don't do it because they want to, and that is obviously reprehensible.

Who are prostitutes subjugating? Are you sure you aren't talking about pimps?

Pawn brokers are reactionary as fuck (taking advantage of the poor in order to gain quick profits than artificially skyrocketing the price). Prostitution is in the majority of cases no better than crack dealing; an illegal business that physically and emotionally becomes a form of enslavement.

[#FF0000]

also you realize that making prostitution illegal does less than noting to 'protect women from prostitution' right

(And it is sorta kinda inaccurate to say anyone is 'defending prostitution')

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

We also advocate eradicating pimps, extending availability of education and a bit of reeducation if necessary

[#FF0000]

We also advocate eradicating pimps, extending availability of education and a bit of reeducation if necessary

yo that is neat. i still don't think you understand what i am saying.

the problem of prostitution isn't one you can solve by making prostitution illegal and doing that might be making things worse. Compare the lives of people who resort to sex work in, say, most of the United States to countries where sex work is legal and sex workers are organized. Of course I'm not saying making prostitution legal is going to fix everything either.

I also want to point out that there are some people who do choose to go to sex work, and don't have a problem with it and see it as just another job. They're a minority, in the grand scheme of things, but I don't think these people should be stopped from doing what they're doing.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Have any of you pro-prostitution folks ever actually talked to a real prostitute?
Well I did and I can tell you that it's heartbreaking.
You don't know what horrors these poor women go through.
Prostitution is barbarous.

I know exactly what you mean. The worst are the liberals on the Young Turks show that say "what? If they didn't like it they wouldn't choose to do it!".

[#FF0000]

I know exactly what you mean. The worst are the liberals on the Young Turks show that say "what? If they didn't like it they wouldn't choose to do it!".

some sex workers do choose to do it though.

EDIT: Plus literally no one ever said "WELP IF THEY DON'T LIKE BEIN PROSTITUTES Y DONT THEY JUST STOP" because nobody is so lacking in awareness to say such a dumb thing

[Rottenfruit]

Have any of you pro-prostitution folks ever actually talked to a real prostitute?
Well I did and I can tell you that it's heartbreaking.
You don't know what horrors these poor women go through.
Prostitution is barbarous.
its the opposite to the ones ive talked too, they did it because they needed money

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Lol why would people even pay for sex in communism. There'd probs just be mega-sex-shed things and shit. Youd go up to someon and be like yo im sellin my penis for 300dollars and theyd e like LmAO FUCKTHAT SHIT

I have to stop drinl

[hetz]

but yo what i am saying is based on what actual sex workers have written.
The ones that are going through hell don't usually write, because they can't even go out shopping freely.
A huge part of prostitutes, at least in Europe, are human trafficking victims.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Hang on, are we talking about the first world right now? Because prostitution in developing countries is being essentially the same as a sex-slave.

[#FF0000]

The ones that are going through hell don't usually write, because they can't even go out shopping freely.
A huge part of prostitutes, at least in Europe, are human trafficking victims.

Yeah, that's definitely true. Nobody is ignoring that, though.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

Prostitution reinforces the patriarchy. All of us "revolutionaries" should be completely against the patriarchy and should be seeking to abolish it alongside capitalism.
The first and most primitive form of the division of workers is gender, before race, wages, and everything else.

[#FF0000]

Prostitution reinforces the patriarchy. All of us "revolutionaries" should be completely against the patriarchy and should be seeking to abolish it alongside capitalism.
The first and most primitive form of the division of workers is gender, before race, wages, and everything else.

But when sex work is made illegal, sex workers end up being put at risk. You make these people criminals and push them to the periphery, making it more likely that they will be exposed to disease, to violence, and to exploitation by pimps. Human trafficking and white slavery aren't the same thing as sex work.

[l'Enfermé]

You won't put prostitutes at risk if prostitutes are abolished comrade.

[#FF0000]

You won't put prostitutes at risk if prostitutes are abolished comrade.

The only way that can happen is if you abolish the conditions that lead to people taking up that sort of work. Criminalizing prostitution doesn't stop people from working as a prostitute.

[l'Enfermé]

Not necessarily, a typical Stalinist solution would be to shoot the prostitutes or throw them into forced labour camps.

>_>

[LiberationTheologist]

Oh this is cute, I love it when people who have registered a few days ago and have 23 posts try to treat me like I'm the uneducated one, especially little shitheads like you that believe in human nature.

Appeal to seniority. Ad hominum. Discrimination against those perceived to younger than you.


No one's impressed by your shit. We get kids like you all the time talking about "non-brainwashed" they are because they subscribe to watered-down liberal Marxism instead of Scientific Marxism. But please, keep talking about how how we're all brainwashed and dogmatic because we accept dialectical and historical materialism. There are plenty of materialists here who would be willing to discuss the matter with you. Ad hominimen, appeal to authenticity, appeal to majority


So then you're not a revolutionary. Why is this guy's not restricted? You just admitted to being a reformist. Regardless, I don't agree with Emma Goldman and I would personally support the workers in their efforts to shorten the work day. I know many socialist organizations that would be willing to help. You're trying to ascribe viewpoints to me that I don't even have. Waste of time.


Ya, I guess those socialists who are willing to help are now liberal reformists in your mind. Your egocentricity on this thread due to the hypocrisy in your statements has you looking silly.



I can't really write a lengthy answer because I'm not really sure what the fuck you're even talking about. You're just ranting and raving about work day hours and how the revolutionaries aren't doing anything. Anyway, there are plenty of revolutionary groups who are currently active. You won't find much discussion about that on the internet because most people prefer discussing theory and history here. However, I should point out that reforms are not "revolutionary." They do nothing to hinder the capitalist relations of production, you've just changed them around a little bit but they still dominate. I would support the workers to shorten the working day but I would realize the limits of a reform.

So now you are a reformist, not a revolutionary. Glad to hear that you would actually consider doing something instead of doing nothing and waiting for a revolution to take place. Now let me restate for you what has happened. I was using an example of how someone realized that a very substantive reform, that I would qualify as radical is in the best interests of a group of people (workers in this case). and should be supported due to hardship of that day on people. That example was used to underscore just how absolutely ridiculous it is to be obstructive over very meaningful social change in the name of "big prize" revolutionary purity. In that example we were talking about the 8 hour work day. I then compared that situation to your self stated ideological obstinacy in opposing any kind of reform because according to you "revolutionaries don't accept reform"




Ohh, I'm shaking in my boots! The reformist liberal is going to rock my world with his groundbreaking theories! Watch out, Revleft, LiberationTheologist (lol theologist) is about to blow away the likes of Rafiq, Paul Cockshott, Jimmie Higgins, and all other materialists with a shitload more experience than him!

No, I do not think creating a new capitalist industry is revolutionary, and you're a moron if you think so. Trading and selling of ANYTHING is capitalism, not revolutionary.

The choice is whether to legalize and regulate, not create an industry. The demand already exists. The decision of whether or not to people should be locked in cages and have their futures destroyed (and their families) or allowed to carry on in a much physical and economic conditions is a very real moral and ethical question that cannot be avoided by any thinking person or anyone who seeks to govern.

[Questionable]

Appeal to seniority. Ad hominum. Discrimination against those perceived to younger than you.


Ad hominimen, appeal to authenticity, appeal to majority

Wow, you sure know a lot of big words! Can you teach me some?


Ya, I guess those socialists who are willing to help are now liberal reformists in your mind. Your egocentricity on this thread due to the hypocrisy in your statements has you looking silly.

No, I never said that. Stop ascribing these viewpoints to me, please, or I'll just stop debating with you.


So now you are a reformist, not a revolutionary. Glad to hear that you would actually consider doing something instead of doing nothing and waiting for a revolution to take place.

I don't understand the things you say. I just pointed out that reforms can only shift around capitalism but won't lead to the abolition of capitalism, which is the goal of revolutionaries. You literally just made that up and tried to pin it to me. Anybody who is not completely stupid will see that I did not support the reform of capitalism into socialism in that post. The only place your accusation of me being a reformist belongs is in your head.

Besides, earlier you just said that we should seek reforms instead of revolution. You fucking said it. You are the reformist, not me.


Now let me restate for you what has happened. I was using an example of how someone realized that a very substantive reform, that I would qualify as radical is in the best interests of a group of people (workers in this case). and should be supported due to hardship of that day on people. That example was used to underscore just how absolutely ridiculous it is to be obstructive over very meaningful social change in the name of "big prize" revolutionary purity.

Sounds good to me. What are we arguing about?

Hey, isn't it a logical fallacy to push viewpoints on opponents that they don't have? Maybe you know the latin term for it.


In that example we were talking about the 8 hour work day. I then compared that situation to your self stated ideological obstinacy in opposing any kind of reform because according to you "revolutionaries don't accept reform"

Where the fuck did I say that? Please, please, PLEASE link to the post where I said that. If you cannot, then you are an idiot and should admit it right now. I said multiple times that I support the battle for reforms, but I realize that they're reforms within a capitalist context, and a revolution needs to happen that will result in the transformation into socialism. I even said that I supported the workers' struggle for an 8 hour work day. You just made that up. What's the Latin name for that logical fallacy?



The choice is whether to legalize and regulate, not create an industry.

That's not a revolutionary choice. It will still exist within capitalist relations.


The demand already exists. The decision of whether or not to people should be locked in cages and have their futures destroyed (and their families) or allowed to carry on in a much physical and economic conditions is a very real moral and ethical question that cannot be avoided by any thinking person or anyone who seeks to govern.

That does not mean that we should support that silly human nature viewpoint of yours that there will always be some form of exchange. Jesus, I can't even tell what your viewpoint is. You're all over the place. Earlier you chastised someone because you said that capitalism was human nature, now you're talking about how you're an amazing revolutionary and you were only supporting reforms until the revolution happened. You flip-flop more than a bourgeois politician.

Anyway, I support the legalization of prostitution while realizing that it will still be a bad place to work and is not a very good reform. You keep trying to set me up as someone who opposes reforms when I've never, ever, ever said anything along those lines, and you're lying when you try to say that. The only reason LiberationTheologist has been able to type up so much is by TELLING LIES about me not supporting reforms under capitalism. But according to him, that somehow makes me a reformist! What a mess of contradictions this sad little man is.