Human Relations in Communism [Archive]

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

29th September 2014, 12:54

It will be exactly the same, the only change about housing will be the property relations; houses will not be rented, etc. The aim of communism is not breaking basic human things which have been ongoing for 200,000 years in multiple forms. Whatever ideology or state of affairs that breaks basic human interaction is not even possible to realize.

What, because of "human nature"? Communism changes all social relations - this includes the death of the bourgeois family, that mechanism that presently ensures the reproduction of the proletariat. This will be accomplished, however, not by different housing - I think that question is best left to people who will live in the socialist society - but by socialising housework, abolishing gender and sexual roles, destroying all restrictions on human sexuality and bodily autonomy etc.

To the OP, intimacy often implies possession, but it need not - if someone is "your" friend, does that mean they can't hang out with anyone else? I suppose people in the socialist society will feel a very generalised sort of friendliness toward one another - as it is pleasant to make friends, to most people, and they will have sex as they please.

RedWorker

29th September 2014, 13:03

What, because of "human nature"? Communism changes all social relations - this includes the death of the bourgeois family, that mechanism that presently ensures the reproduction of the proletariat. This will be accomplished, however, not by different housing - I think that question is best left to people who will live in the socialist society - but by socialising housework, abolishing gender and sexual roles, destroying all restrictions on human sexuality and bodily autonomy etc.

And exactly what does this have to do with parents being forced to not live with their children?

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

29th September 2014, 13:17

And exactly what does this have to do with parents being forced to not live with their children?

Who said anyone would be forced to do anything? The point is that, the material basis of the family having disappeared, there is no reason for the parents to want to live with "their" children over and above their desire to live with other people.

RedWorker

29th September 2014, 13:22

Who said anyone would be forced to do anything? The point is that, the material basis of the family having disappeared, there is no reason for the parents to want to live with "their" children over and above their desire to live with other people.

Correct. Yet the OP seems to have the idea that communism is some sort of nightmare in which some "revolutionaries" decided that a family can't be allowed to live together anymore, or that everyone is forced to live in immediate immediacy with everyone else, removing all notions of privacy, etc.

Spatula City

29th September 2014, 13:26

Exclusivity isn't the same thing as ownership-- it's a mutual decision where both parties have the same amount of power within the relationship. The biggest difference would probably be in the criteria by which you select your partner-- ie: finances wouldn't play such a large role.

I suppose this is a point of contention depending on how extreme you are, but I don't consider feeling protective of your family or taking responsibility for your children to be exploitation. They're not commodities.

I mean, isn't the point egalitarianism and empowerment, not blind adherence to state demands or some theory of how human relations need to be?

Oh, and hey-- first post!

Tim Cornelis

29th September 2014, 13:29

In the transition toward socialism, I am in favour of breaking up the bourgeois family relatively forcefully by extending the mandatory school day (which would still require a majority of workers voting for extending the school day). I would imagine children would sleep in their parent's homes and spend some time awake there as well. In kibbutzim children spent more quality time with their parents than in Western countries despite collective child rearing.

I'm a little wary of you saying "my girlfriend" / "my child" signifying [individual] ownership though.

Quail

29th September 2014, 13:59

Blake's Baby

29th September 2014, 22:09

VCrakeV

29th September 2014, 22:39

Correct. Yet the OP seems to have the idea that communism is some sort of nightmare in which some "revolutionaries" decided that a family can't be allowed to live together anymore, or that everyone is forced to live in immediate immediacy with everyone else, removing all notions of privacy, etc.

The "OP" doesn't think communism is a sort of nightmare; I'm simply new to communism, and may have interpreted something incorrectly. In fact, I am actually supportive of what communist ideologies I've learned. The way I interpreted it was that communism is when a society is essentially like a hive; everyone is treated roughly the same.

Anyway, my question has been answered; family and friends are on a similar level, and intimate relationships exist, but without the "restrictive" traits of most of today's relationships. Again, like a hive.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

29th September 2014, 22:44

The "OP" doesn't think communism is a sort of nightmare; I'm simply new to communism, and may have interpreted something incorrectly. In fact, I am actually supportive of what communist ideologies I've learned. The way I interpreted it was that communism is when a society is essentially like a hive; everyone is treated roughly the same.

Anyway, my question has been answered; family and friends are on a similar level, and intimate relationships exist, but without the "restrictive" traits of most of today's relationships. Again, like a hive.

Er...

Hives are places, not just of social stratification, but of genetic one as well. Communism is the stateless society where the means of production are controlled by society itself, and employed on a rational, planned basis to satisfy the wants of the members of society. Members of the communist society will be far less restricted than people today are (I mention this as many people who talk about "hives" have a very, let's say despotic, notion of "communism").

Blake's Baby

29th September 2014, 22:51

The "OP" doesn't think communism is a sort of nightmare; I'm simply new to communism, and may have interpreted something incorrectly. In fact, I am actually supportive of what communist ideologies I've learned. The way I interpreted it was that communism is when a society is essentially like a hive; everyone is treated roughly the same.

Anyway, my question has been answered; family and friends are on a similar level, and intimate relationships exist, but without the "restrictive" traits of most of today's relationships. Again, like a hive.

As to what you're misinterpreting, it depends on who you listen to. If you start mentioning toothbrushes, we know you've been listening to insane anti-communists (who have a thing about toothbrushes).

There is no public power in a communist society separate from the people themselves. So there is no 'other' to come and take away 'your' kids. On the other hand, there's no necessity to see them as 'your' kids as opposed to 'everyone's' kids. Society will not force you to take care of them, nor will it force you not to take care of them. Society will take care of them. You're part of society. How much input you have into that care is a matter for you and the rest of the community to work out.

Sewer Socialist

30th September 2014, 05:28

In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or – this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms – with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure.

In other words, the nuclear family and even monogamy itself are historically both products of the institution of private property. With the abolition of private wealth, the structure of society will transform in the absence of the conditions which make those structures necessary. Marriage, housing, child rearing, etc. will change, just as they have changed in the transition between feudalism and capitalism, for example.

At least I fucking hope so. Monogamy drives me crazy. Get at me, comrades!

GanzEgal

5th October 2014, 12:38

As far as I've researched on the web, the nuclear family is broken up, because there wouldn't be family homes. If I have a child, what would my relationship with him be like, since homes wouldn't be the same? What about other relationships (intimate and non-intimate)? I just have this vibe that intimacy is a sort of ownership: my child, my girlfriend, etc. in particular, having a girlfriend/boyfriend means that you can do things with them that others can't, which, again, means ownership.
There will be family homes as long as individuals want to have a family. Some persons would probably want to experiment with new ways of living and organizing child care. The majority would probably be passive and cautious about making big changes in such sensitive issues. In the long run, the solution prevails which individuals find most pleasing. Possibly many different solutions will prevail, and no one solution becomes an overwhelmingly popular standard that nearly everyone adopts.

Sexual relations are based on biological competition, the fittest are more popular as mating partners than the average, not to say the least attractive end of the gaussian curve. I believe that sexual needs are approximately as important for an individual's happiness as material needs are. Therefore I see a need for regulating sexual relations, or creating commercial sexual services, to ensure that everyone gets as much sexual pleasure as he or she needs. Without regulation or services of this kind, the lower end of the gaussian curve would be left in sexual poverty, where they are already now in the current world order.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

5th October 2014, 13:08

Sexual relations are based on biological competition, the fittest are more popular as mating partners than the average, not to say the least attractive end of the gaussian curve.

And the evidence for this is, what? And before you ask, no, evo-psych ad-hoc stories don't count. Leave that stuff for BAHFest.

I believe that sexual needs are approximately as important for an individual's happiness as material needs are. Therefore I see a need for regulating sexual relations

...what.

How would they be regulated? And who would regulate them, the Socialist Police?

or creating commercial sexual services

Commercial services in communism?

Redistribute the Rep

5th October 2014, 13:54

How would they be regulated? And who would regulate them, the Socialist Police?

The same people who will enforce late term abortion restrictions and other limitations on our bodily autonomy. Duh.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

5th October 2014, 14:10

The same people who will enforce late term abortion restrictions and other limitations on our bodily autonomy. Duh.

Sometimes I get the impression that a lot of RevLeft users don't want to abolish the pigs, they want to be chief pig. Anyway, this is all ever so slightly creepy and reminiscent of all sorts of MRE nonsense.

Spatula City

5th October 2014, 14:33

Sexual relations are based on biological competition, the fittest are more popular as mating partners than the average, not to say the least attractive end of the gaussian curve. I believe that sexual needs are approximately as important for an individual's happiness as material needs are. Therefore I see a need for regulating sexual relations, or creating commercial sexual services, to ensure that everyone gets as much sexual pleasure as he or she needs. Without regulation or services of this kind, the lower end of the gaussian curve would be left in sexual poverty, where they are already now in the current world order.

I have some ideas for solving the sexual inequality problem:

-instead of actual sex the sexually undesirable could use drugs, or even VR devices that simulate sex in an extremely realistic manner. Probably not an option because it isn't real sex, and has less value.

-scientists could rig an assembly line that produces a class of humans whose purpose is the sexual fulfillment of others.

-we could find the most universally sexually desirable human beings, kill the rest and then clone them over and over.

-we could use the media to condition people to be attracted to anyone who wears a special hat. Then we could all take turns wearing the hat.

Rosa Partizan

5th October 2014, 14:50

Sexual relations are based on biological competition, the fittest are more popular as mating partners than the average, not to say the least attractive end of the gaussian curve. I believe that sexual needs are approximately as important for an individual's happiness as material needs are. Therefore I see a need for regulating sexual relations, or creating commercial sexual services, to ensure that everyone gets as much sexual pleasure as he or she needs. Without regulation or services of this kind, the lower end of the gaussian curve would be left in sexual poverty, where they are already now in the current world order.

cry me a river. You can't demand or claim sexuality, especially not by another person to share it with you. No one has to ensure that you have sex every other day (or ensure it even only once a month or whatever), this is not how sexual mutuality, lust and sexual self-determination work. You don't NEED sex the way you need water or food. You can go without sex for a very, very long time. This may not always be pleasant, but who the fuck are you to think that you are entitled to sex with anyone?

Lord Testicles

5th October 2014, 14:54

DOOM

5th October 2014, 15:11

TheAntiReactionary

5th October 2014, 20:10

I imagine in a communist society your relationship with your children would be pretty similar - you'd still care for them and support them in growing up - but child-rearing would be done more communally/collectively so that there would be less of an emphasis placed on blood relatives as "family" and a shift towards viewing family as the people you are close to and who will look after you (or vice-versa).

Families which have adopted children would, of course, view family as a group of close people who care for each other rather than something decided by blood relations, although I'm aware that much of the time, families that have children who are biologically related are families for that reason only. Although communal or collective child-rearing seem likely to work in well-populated and safe areas, there may be a problem with that when a family lives in a very lowly populated area and the parents in custody of a child are generally distrusting of other people (especially if it's for a good reason, like high rates of violent crime).

I think that intimate relationships in our current society are very much viewed in terms of ownership - I find that most of the language around partners tends to imply ownership of some kind. I think the important thing in intimate relationships is that they are (or should be) essentially a mutual agreement between partners. Whether that means both (or all) partners agree to see each other exclusively or have some other arrangement is up to the people involved.

Yeah, I can see how the relationship between a parent and a child is often one of ownership, and that some of the time a child belongs to a parent against his or her will. Child abuse is one of the social issues that pretty much tops my list of concerns, and I find it terrible how those who call themselves parents are able to treat them how they wish without the knowledge of others. And then on the other hand, they can be forcefully removed from their homes by their parents, like if they are non-heterosexual or have beliefs and opinions that are different. When we achieve our goals, helping an abandoned child might no longer be a problem, but it would be difficult to assist an abused child without the use of authority.

GanzEgal

5th October 2014, 21:51

And the evidence for this is, what?
So you believe that all individuals in the society have an equal number of romantically interested partner candidates (or anyway you dismissed my claim there is significant inequality in the number of romantically interested partner candidates that individuals in the society have, and asked for evidence, so apparently you have _ some_ other circumstances in mind than a hugely inequal gaussian curve).

Unfortunately I am not in the mood for googling that for you, so I allow this claim to remain questionable and doubtable, for whoever may wish to doubt it.

How would they be regulated? And who would regulate them, the Socialist Police?
The legal role of police force is not to make political decisions.

Currently nearly all countries regulate sexual relations, by banning polygamy, which is seen as a form of gross inequality in sexual and family relations.

How would sexual relations be regulated, a ban on polygamy is just one of many possible legal ways to reduce statistical inequality in sexual relations. Not sufficient, if the objective is anywhere near full equality of individuals in the society. But an easily understandable example of legal regulation of sexual relations with the aim of reducing inequality among the population.

Commercial services in communism?
Wordplay is unnecessary, but it if sounds better, change the term into professional services. Services do exist in Socialism, and they are managed by persons whose job, profession, is to manage the said service. Which services need to exist in the society, depends on public demand among consumers. And who will work in each profession, depends first by personal preference, by secondarily by some other carrot which the society will need to offer, to get the least wanted jobs filled. But professional sexual or erotic services are probably not even among the least wanted jobs in the society. They may seem to be, if we stereotypically assume that all men want liberal sex but no woman wants liberal sex. But such a stereotypical assumption is not an accurate depiction of reality. In reality also female individuals exist, who view liberal sex as something enjoyable, or at least easier and more comfortable than the least wanted jobs in the job market. So in the absence of a doctrinal or authoritarian ban on professional sexual or erotic services, such services would exist, because the public demand exists, and willing workers do exist.

GanzEgal

5th October 2014, 22:02

You don't NEED sex the way you need water or food. You can go without sex for a very, very long time. This may not always be pleasant, but who the fuck are you to think that you are entitled to sex
It is true that a human survives without sex.

But a Socialist society would not, and could not, limit itself to merely sustaining its citizens alive, without offering any other product or service than what prevents the imminent death of the citizens.

Using a survival argument is not fair, if you plan to receive products or services which would deserve to be denied from you by the same argument by which you want to deny a service from other people. Using a survival argument is totally irrlevant, because it would not be applied to really any product or service in the society. The society would be full of products and services which are unnecessary for survival of the citizens.

Lord Testicles

7th October 2014, 21:17

It is true that a human survives without sex.

But a Socialist society would not, and could not, limit itself to merely sustaining its citizens alive, without offering any other product or service than what prevents the imminent death of the citizens.

Using a survival argument is not fair, if you plan to receive products or services which would deserve to be denied from you by the same argument by which you want to deny a service from other people. Using a survival argument is totally irrlevant, because it would not be applied to really any product or service in the society. The society would be full of products and services which are unnecessary for survival of the citizens.

Sexual gratification is something you can provide for yourself. No society or any individual within that society should not be expected to provide you with sexual gratification.

What makes you think that you are entitled to sexual gratification and why do you think society has a responsibility to provide you with it?

To be quite honest you sound like a spoilt brat, and that's putting it as nicely as possible.

Rosa Partizan

7th October 2014, 22:21

you should put it as it is: he sounds like an entitled pig.

Society is not responsible for your (GanzEgal's) own relationships. There is no duty to provide you with other human beings for your sexual pleasure, especially when those humans don't share the same desire to get sexual with you. It's interesting that you call a thing like sexuality a product. To me, this is a highly capitalist vocabulary. In a communist society, there would be no relationships of any kind because of economic need as we know it nowadays. So why do you think you are entitled to commodify another person for your sexual pleasure? Why do you give a fuck whether the other person would like to have sex with you or not? Why do you think that in such a society, you would be entitled make someone's sexuality a product?

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

7th October 2014, 23:31

So you believe that all individuals in the society have an equal number of romantically interested partner candidates (or anyway you dismissed my claim there is significant inequality in the number of romantically interested partner candidates that individuals in the society have, and asked for evidence, so apparently you have _ some_ other circumstances in mind than a hugely inequal gaussian curve).

Unfortunately I am not in the mood for googling that for you, so I allow this claim to remain questionable and doubtable, for whoever may wish to doubt it.

Actually, the part of your assertion that is without evidence is that "the fittest" (reproductively) are more popular as mating partners etc. Sexual attraction in the human is chiefly cultural. Not to mention that not every distribution is a Gauss curve.

That's just part of your problem. The chief thing is this:

The legal role of police force is not to make political decisions.

Currently nearly all countries regulate sexual relations, by banning polygamy, which is seen as a form of gross inequality in sexual and family relations.

How would sexual relations be regulated, a ban on polygamy is just one of many possible legal ways to reduce statistical inequality in sexual relations. Not sufficient, if the objective is anywhere near full equality of individuals in the society. But an easily understandable example of legal regulation of sexual relations with the aim of reducing inequality among the population.

This never ceases to amaze me. I joke about the Socialist Police, and people don't even appreciate that there is a joke. Marxism 101: there is no Socialist Police. Socialism is a classless, stateless society where the repressive functions of human society have withered away. That means no socialist police, that means no prohibition on polygamy, that means no prohibitions on consensual behaviour, full stop.

Wordplay is unnecessary, but it if sounds better, change the term into professional services. Services do exist in Socialism, and they are managed by persons whose job, profession, is to manage the said service. Which services need to exist in the society, depends on public demand among consumers. And who will work in each profession, depends first by personal preference, by secondarily by some other carrot which the society will need to offer, to get the least wanted jobs filled. But professional sexual or erotic services are probably not even among the least wanted jobs in the society. They may seem to be, if we stereotypically assume that all men want liberal sex but no woman wants liberal sex. But such a stereotypical assumption is not an accurate depiction of reality. In reality also female individuals exist, who view liberal sex as something enjoyable, or at least easier and more comfortable than the least wanted jobs in the job market. So in the absence of a doctrinal or authoritarian ban on professional sexual or erotic services, such services would exist, because the public demand exists, and willing workers do exist.

Sex with liberals is awful.

And of course there would probably be all sorts of sexual and "erotic" services in the socialist society. But they would not be commercial in any sense - and they certainly wouldn't be mandated by some sort of Global Sex Equality Commission of the Socialist Police Force. Nor is the goal of socialists to "make everyone equal". See e.g. Marx's attack on Lassalle (and Lassalle was suggesting something much milder).

Rosa Partizan

7th October 2014, 23:38

Oh I didn't even read that post where he quoted 870. Time for another rage attack.

GanzEgal

8th October 2014, 07:14

Actually, the part of your assertion that is without evidence is that "the fittest" (reproductively) are more popular as mating partners etc. Sexual attraction in the human is chiefly cultural. Not to mention that not every distribution is a Gauss curve.
With "the fittest" I refer to "the most wanted", as a directly observable (and obvious to practically everyone in the society) statistical fact here and now, not to reproduction or evolution theory. The reference to Gaussian curve was meant to be approximate. In reality, a perfect Gaussian curve probably never exists anywhere in real life, it is an approximate depiction and prediction of reality. In some cases the reality is very far from the Gaussian curve, but still the concept is useful if not taken too literally.

there is no Socialist Police (...) no prohibitions on consensual behaviour, full stop.
You are not making full sense here. The police exists mainly to prevent non-consensual behaviour. By theorizing that there will not by a police force, you would need to believe that no person in the world will engage in non-consensual behaviour against others. I don't believe in such innocence and goodness of all humans. Of some humans, yes. Of most humans, possibly. But all humans, no.

Besides, I smell that many Socialists would like to enforce a universal global ban on Capitalism, even if 10% or 1% or 0,001% of world population would like to run their economic affairs in a Capitalist style among themselves. If they were prevented from doing so, that would be police action, and an example of preventing consensual behaviour.

And of course there would probably be all sorts of sexual and "erotic" services in the socialist society.
Now we agree about a point. But I smell that not everyone around here agrees about this point.

Nor is the goal of socialists to "make everyone equal". See e.g. Marx's attack on Lassalle (and Lassalle was suggesting something much milder).
I don't feel like googleing for the mentioned issue. I will be thankful if you explain the main points of the incident in this discussion. For me personally, making everyone equal is _the_ objective in life and society, which is morally most interesting and worth pursuing over any other objective whatsoever. So my personal goal is making everyone equal (to the extent that they want to be equal -- I do accommodate the thought of people willing to work more than most people want to work, getting more rewards for their work).

Lord Testicles

8th October 2014, 10:35

you should put it as it is: he sounds like an entitled pig.

You are right of course.

I really wanted to know the reasoning behind his warped view of human relationships but it would seem that GanzEgal is either too ignorant or cowardly to explain these reasons to us.

GanzEgal

8th October 2014, 13:01

I really wanted to know the reasoning behind his warped view of human relationships
>> "I believe that sexual needs are approximately as important for an individual's happiness as material needs are."

Inequality in a major part of a person's total happiness means there is major inequality among the population. That deserves to be paid attention to, if the objective is to distribute happiness equally among the population.

Your objective might be something else than promoting the happiness of the population. If the happiness of humans is irrelevant for you, then this topic might be irrelevant for you.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

8th October 2014, 17:51

With "the fittest" I refer to "the most wanted", as a directly observable (and obvious to practically everyone in the society) statistical fact here and now, not to reproduction or evolution theory. The reference to Gaussian curve was meant to be approximate. In reality, a perfect Gaussian curve probably never exists anywhere in real life, it is an approximate depiction and prediction of reality. In some cases the reality is very far from the Gaussian curve, but still the concept is useful if not taken too literally.

So what you wanted to say is that people with the most partners have the most partners, and that the distribution of the number of partners follows the Gauss curve except it doesn't.

Fair enough.

You are not making full sense here. The police exists mainly to prevent non-consensual behaviour.

Well, no. That's the point. The police exist to enforce the class rule - of the bourgeoisie at present. If they stop any non-consensual behaviour, that is entirely incidental/

By theorizing that there will not by a police force, you would need to believe that no person in the world will engage in non-consensual behaviour against others. I don't believe in such innocence and goodness of all humans. Of some humans, yes. Of most humans, possibly. But all humans, no.

It's not a matter of goodness and innocence, but of the fact that man's social being determines his consciousness. In socialism, what social problems would remain - people acting in anger etc. - would be dealt with by the ordinary members of society (this already happens in capitalism to an extent).

Which is besides the point - the point being that prohibitions of consensual behaviour are noxious.

Besides, I smell that many Socialists would like to enforce a universal global ban on Capitalism, even if 10% or 1% or 0,001% of world population would like to run their economic affairs in a Capitalist style among themselves. If they were prevented from doing so, that would be police action, and an example of preventing consensual behaviour.

Capitalism is not a kind of behaviour. If some weirdo wants to call himself the chairman of the board of directors and dress in a suit, whatever. People will ignore him.

I don't feel like googleing for the mentioned issue. I will be thankful if you explain the main points of the incident in this discussion. For me personally, making everyone equal is _the_ objective in life and society, which is morally most interesting and worth pursuing over any other objective whatsoever. So my personal goal is making everyone equal (to the extent that they want to be equal -- I do accommodate the thought of people willing to work more than most people want to work, getting more rewards for their work).

And that is the chief problem. Socialism is not simply a nice idea that you can tweak and change and tailor to suit your interests - it is a very specific form of society, determined by the mode of production that prevails.

Lord Testicles

8th October 2014, 18:51

>> "I believe that sexual needs are approximately as important for an individual's happiness as material needs are."

Inequality in a major part of a person's total happiness means there is major inequality among the population. That deserves to be paid attention to, if the objective is to distribute happiness equally among the population.

Your objective might be something else than promoting the happiness of the population. If the happiness of humans is irrelevant for you, then this topic might be irrelevant for you.

The happiness of human beings is important to me which is why I don't want to create a society were anyone feels obliged to be your glorified sex toy.

Maybe you could try and answer the question that I actually posed to you:

"What makes you think that you are entitled to sexual gratification and why do you think society has a responsibility to provide you with it?"

GanzEgal

8th October 2014, 21:16

The happiness of human beings is important to me which is why I don't want to create a society were anyone feels obliged to be your glorified sex toy.

Maybe you could try and answer the question that I actually posed to you:

"What makes you think that you are entitled to sexual gratification and why do you think society has a responsibility to provide you with it?"
I want to promote equality in happiness of individuals in the society. Equalizing people's material well-being helps a lot, but there are also other significant inequalities than material ones.

Offer and demand helps to solve most problems. If there is demand for sexual pleasure in the society, so there will be services offered for sexual pleasure. Nobody talks of forced labour here (except you, but only as a debating strategy, by which you imagine to gain an upper hand in the debate, but I have seen debates before, and will not be fooled by any debating strategy whatsoever). Services are run by professionals. People choose their own profession. Nobody is forced to take a profession that he or she finds remarkably unpleasing. Problem solved: there is no problem.

GanzEgal

8th October 2014, 21:35

The police exist to enforce the class rule - of the bourgeoisie at present. If they stop any non-consensual behaviour, that is entirely incidental/
(...)
In socialism, what social problems would remain - people acting in anger etc. - would be dealt with by the ordinary members of society
It is more the army whose role is to defend the sovereignty of the government. In many countries the elections are democratic enough to say that working class rules, rather than owning class. But the owning class presents political agendas which attract most votes from the working class. So indirectly the owning class rules, not as dictators but because workers vote them.

In this sense the situation is different from 19th century, when Socialist basic literature was written: back then the bourgeoisie ruled as dictators. Now they rule because workers vote them. So who is to blame that they still rule?

Law enforcement is not everyman's hobby. You can easily get a permanent bodily injury, or even die, if an untrained amateur enters a scene as common and seemingly innocent as a married couple yelling at each other and keeping the neighbourhood awake in middle of the night. An outsider enters the scene, and soon there is a kitchen knife in someone's back. There will always be need for trained and sufficently armed (not necessarily with firearms, bobbies have a baton only) security personnel, who are on guard around the clock and are reachable by calling 911. A police force, in other words.

Rosa Partizan

8th October 2014, 21:46

I want to promote equality in happiness of individuals in the society. Equalizing people's material well-being helps a lot, but there are also other significant inequalities than material ones.

Offer and demand helps to solve most problems. If there is demand for sexual pleasure in the society, so there will be services offered for sexual pleasure. Nobody talks of forced labour here (except you, but only as a debating strategy, by which you imagine to gain an upper hand in the debate, but I have seen debates before, and will not be fooled by any debating strategy whatsoever). Services are run by professionals. People choose their own profession. Nobody is forced to take a profession that he or she finds remarkably unpleasing. Problem solved: there is no problem.

we have this in capitalism already and it had way more bad than good consequences. how would you eliminate those, especially considering that such "services" would be provided by way more women then men?

GanzEgal

8th October 2014, 22:27

we have this in capitalism already and it had way more bad than good consequences. how would you eliminate those, especially considering that such "services" would be provided by way more women then men?
Mention a bad consequence, as many as comes in mind, and I will comment.

Lord Testicles

8th October 2014, 22:31

I want to promote equality in happiness of individuals in the society. Equalizing people's material well-being helps a lot, but there are also other significant inequalities than material ones.

Offer and demand helps to solve most problems. If there is demand for sexual pleasure in the society, so there will be services offered for sexual pleasure. Nobody talks of forced labour here (except you, but only as a debating strategy, by which you imagine to gain an upper hand in the debate, but I have seen debates before, and will not be fooled by any debating strategy whatsoever). Services are run by professionals. People choose their own profession. Nobody is forced to take a profession that he or she finds remarkably unpleasing. Problem solved: there is no problem.

You're still not answering the question:

Why do you think society has a responsibility to provide you with sexual gratification?

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

8th October 2014, 22:35

Communism provides for equality in terms of access not equality of experience. If I eat pancakes on Thursdays, is everyone expected to follow my lead? If they don't, have we accidentally created an unequal society? If you can't convince anyone to have sex with you, thats a personal problem that can be remedied on your own as was pointed out earlier in this thread. The fact that you've gone on for two pages about this makes you sound like a troll.

Rosa Partizan

8th October 2014, 22:56

Mention a bad consequence, as many as comes in mind, and I will comment.

the fact that the one you get this "sex service" from has to subordinate their own sexual fulfillment to yours and can't voice it the way you can do that, alarming numbers of human trafficking, these very current findings (http://www.sabinabecker.com/2014/09/german-psychologists-and-the-scientific-case-against-prostitution.html) of leading trauma scientists in Germany, STDs and violence en masse... just because guys like you feel entitled to have sex. I really wouldn't care for johns having their penisses fall off over night :)

ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт

8th October 2014, 23:00

In a communist society, "demand" doesn't really make sense as an economic concept. Capitalist production responds to demand to generate revenue. This isn't the same thing as meeting human need. The demand for video games is pretty high, but I'll go ahead and take the risk by saying the vast majority of people don't need video games to live well. In other words, capitalist demand is whatever will make money for the bourgeoisie.

In communism, things function differently. People need things, but productive endeavors don't set out to satisfy "demand" in the same way, because all production is owned collectively. There's really no one to beat to the market or to sell it to, because everyone is collectively responsible for production and ownership is also collective.

Without commodities existing as a concept, sex cannot be commoditized. Sex can't be purchased or sold. Human interaction will be human, and sex will be an act of intimacy. If you can't convince anyone to have sex with you, I'd recommend washing yourself.

Rosa Partizan

8th October 2014, 23:03

ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт

8th October 2014, 23:06

To Rosa Partizan,

I appreciate that. I didn't mention love for that reason. I just think it's hard to argue that making oneself as vulnerable as one is during intercourse is not intimate. It can be a wild, steamy one night stand, but those moments are spent in closeness between human beings. And that's kind of beautiful.

Lord Testicles

8th October 2014, 23:26

In a communist society, "demand" doesn't really make sense as an economic concept. Capitalist production responds to demand to generate revenue. This isn't the same thing as meeting human need. The demand for video games is pretty high, but I'll go ahead and take the risk by saying the vast majority of people don't need video games to live well. In other words, capitalist demand is whatever will make money for the bourgeoisie.

In communism, things function differently. People need things, but productive endeavors don't set out to satisfy "demand" in the same way, because all production is owned collectively. There's really no one to beat to the market or to sell it to, because everyone is collectively responsible for production and ownership is also collective.

I would disagree with this. Capitalism creates demand, nobody wanted poptarts or tamagotchis until somebody was already producing them. I would argue that in a society where the means of production are democratically owned then that society would naturally direct those productive forces to satisfy demand as much as it could.

Without commodities existing as a concept, sex cannot be commoditized. Sex can't be purchased or sold. Human interaction will be human, and sex will be an act of intimacy.

Exactly, how does prostitution hope to survive when everyone has free access to the totality of societies produce?

GanzEgal

9th October 2014, 09:24

Why do you think society has a responsibility to provide (...) sexual gratification?
Because there is public demand for such a service. I am not making an exception for this service, from the universal principle of organizing offer to meet demand. It is more like you are making an exception here, so you would need to explain why you think/want/require that this service should not be offered in the society, by the same principles of offer and demand (or whatever your principles are) as other services in the society.

Even more so if there is no police force, or no ban on consensual activity, what mechanism would ban or prevent erotic services from being demanded and offered?

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

9th October 2014, 09:58

It is more the army whose role is to defend the sovereignty of the government.

The army defends - or is intended to defend - the interests of one particular national section of the bourgeoisie. The police defend - and daily reproduce - the rule of the bourgeoisie in general.

In many countries the elections are democratic enough to say that working class rules, rather than owning class. But the owning class presents political agendas which attract most votes from the working class. So indirectly the owning class rules, not as dictators but because workers vote them.

In this sense the situation is different from 19th century, when Socialist basic literature was written: back then the bourgeoisie ruled as dictators. Now they rule because workers vote them. So who is to blame that they still rule?

Bourgeois democracies existed in the 19th century as well (and the early 20th and so on). The point is that the bourgeois state is structurally set up so the interest of the proletariat is ignored and the interest of the bourgeoisie determines how the state acts. That is bourgeois dictatorship (and class dictatorship in general, in Marxist terms).

Law enforcement is not everyman's hobby. You can easily get a permanent bodily injury, or even die, if an untrained amateur enters a scene as common and seemingly innocent as a married couple yelling at each other and keeping the neighbourhood awake in middle of the night. An outsider enters the scene, and soon there is a kitchen knife in someone's back. There will always be need for trained and sufficently armed (not necessarily with firearms, bobbies have a baton only) security personnel, who are on guard around the clock and are reachable by calling 911. A police force, in other words.

But in fact, people already do knock on the doors when people are yelling and making a scene, and most of them do not end up with a knife in their back. In socialism, presumably arms would be available to whoever would want them, and some sort of watch system might be implemented - but it would not be a police force as it would not be a separate body of armed men distinct from the general population, enforcing class rule.

But as I said, what is really worrying about your proposal is that you think some sort of socialist authority might ban consensual behaviour or force people to provide sexual services. That should be a sign that you need to rethink this.

GanzEgal

9th October 2014, 11:04

In socialism, presumably arms would be available to whoever would want them
Hmmm.

I want three nukes and a neutron bomb. Gift delivery to the home address of my work colleague.

Seriously, disarmament is the way to go, at every level of society. Nothing that explodes, including firearms, should exist in the society. Also the most dangerous poisons and toxins need to be regulated, as they are today.

it would not be a separate body of armed men distinct from the general population, enforcing class rule.
Policemen are not the class that you refer to. The are not owning class, neither are they highly paid -- their salaries are actually lower than average, at least in my country. If policemen are not the class that you refer to, and Capitalism does not exist in the society, having a police force is not a problem of the kind that you describe. The class no longer exists, which you refer to.

you think some sort of socialist authority might ban consensual behaviour or force people to provide sexual services.
Now as arms and nukes were mentioned, it suddenly became clear that the society needs to ban at least some consensual behaviour. For example, hobby workshops for building your own nuke should be as illegal as they are in our current society.

As for forcing people to provide some services, I never said that anyone should be forced to work in these services. Don't like the job, never take the job, or quit the job today. Problem solved.

Lord Testicles

9th October 2014, 12:15

Because there is public demand for such a service. I am not making an exception for this service, from the universal principle of organizing offer to meet demand. It is more like you are making an exception here, so you would need to explain why you think/want/require that this service should not be offered in the society, by the same principles of offer and demand (or whatever your principles are) as other services in the society.

Even more so if there is no police force, or no ban on consensual activity, what mechanism would ban or prevent erotic services from being demanded and offered?

You don't seem to understand that sex work will simply cease to exist under socialism. Sure, consenting adults will be allowed to do what they want, if you want to be pissed on by a gaggle of strangers then that's your business but sex will not be a commodity or service that you can demand or buy.

If everybody has free access to the totality of societies produce, what do you expect to have to offer in payment for sex? Or do you just expect that there will be a section of society that you can demand sex from at any time?

You must be one sick puppy to think of sex as a service as opposed to a human interaction.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

9th October 2014, 12:30

Hmmm.

I want three nukes and a neutron bomb. Gift delivery to the home address of my work colleague.

Except, of course, none of us live in the socialist society, do we? In socialism, there would be no competition between colleagues at work - if terms like "colleague" and "work" even make sense in socialism.

Seriously, disarmament is the way to go, at every level of society. Nothing that explodes, including firearms, should exist in the society. Also the most dangerous poisons and toxins need to be regulated, as they are today.

Almost everything explodes if you know what you're doing (or alternately, if you don't). Laptop batteries can explode. Does that mean batteries should be banned? It's all pretty nonsensical - apparently workers can be trusted to plan and operate the entire global process of production, but owning guns is simply too much.

Policemen are not the class that you refer to. The are not owning class, neither are they highly paid -- their salaries are actually lower than average, at least in my country. If policemen are not the class that you refer to, and Capitalism does not exist in the society, having a police force is not a problem of the kind that you describe. The class no longer exists, which you refer to.

No, cops aren't the ruling class, they're a special stratum that serves as the enforcers of the ruling class. And generally, they're paid above the average, as well as enjoying perks that come with the job.

Now as arms and nukes were mentioned, it suddenly became clear that the society needs to ban at least some consensual behaviour. For example, hobby workshops for building your own nuke should be as illegal as they are in our current society.

As for forcing people to provide some services, I never said that anyone should be forced to work in these services. Don't like the job, never take the job, or quit the job today. Problem solved.

Except you talked about prohibiting sexual behaviour so that people get an equal amount of sexual partners. What's next, should homosexuality be prohibited so men get equal access to lesbians? It's all quite worrying, actually.

You don't seem to understand that sex work will simply cease to exist under socialism. Sure, consenting adults will be allowed to do what they want, if you want to be pissed on by a gaggle of strangers then that's your business but sex will not be a commodity or service that you can demand or buy.

If everybody has free access to the totality of societies produce, what do you expect to have to offer in payment for sex? Or do you just expect that there will be a section of society that you can demand sex from at any time?

You must be one sick puppy to think of sex as a service as opposed to a human interaction.

I don't think it's a good idea to mystify sex. Sex, like any other action, can be a service (and of course it's a "human interaction", even if it's a service). Obviously in socialism it can't be a commercial service, but if people want to preform that service - i.e. publicly announce that they're available for sex by appointment and with certain restrictions - why not? This is not the same as "demanding sex" in the sense that someone can't refuse sex (obviously your plumber can refuse to provide services and you can't imprison him until he fixes your toilet). But there's, I think, a difference between sex as a service or calling, and regular sex.

Lord Testicles

9th October 2014, 12:45

I don't think it's a good idea to mystify sex. Sex, like any other action, can be a service (and of course it's a "human interaction", even if it's a service). Obviously in socialism it can't be a commercial service, but if people want to preform that service - i.e. publicly announce that they're available for sex by appointment and with certain restrictions - why not? This is not the same as "demanding sex" in the sense that someone can't refuse sex (obviously your plumber can refuse to provide services and you can't imprison him until he fixes your toilet). But there's, I think, a difference between sex as a service or calling, and regular sex.

I don't think I'm mystifying sex at all. Let's be clear, under socialism sex work will not exist as is exists today, if someone wished to do as you describe then then that's fine but it's not work, it's just two or more people agreeing to have sex for whatever reason.

Under socialism I will not be able to just wander out into town at night and demand sex from someone for the simple reason that I have the 50 credits that they need to survive.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

9th October 2014, 12:48

I don't think I'm mystifying sex at all. Let's be clear, under socialism sex work will not exist as is exists today, if someone wished to do as you describe then then that's fine but it's not work, it's just two or more people agreeing to have sex for whatever reason.

Under socialism I will not be able to just wander out into town at night and demand sex from someone for the simple reason that I have the 50 credits that they need to survive.

Yeah, I don't think anyone but the market "socialists" would dispute that. Work doesn't really exist under socialism. Services of a sort do - e.g. plumbing, painting etc., and yes, possibly sex services if people want to do that sort of thing.

GanzEgal

9th October 2014, 12:58

If everybody has free access to the totality of societies produce, what do you expect to have to offer in payment for [ fill in the blank with any service whatsoever ]
I completed the thought for you. I have not suggested that erotic services should differ in any way from other services in the society, what comes to payment or non-payment, or recruitment of workers in the trade. If there is a problem between offer and demand, as you expect, many services in the society might suffer from a similar type of problem.

Lord Testicles

9th October 2014, 13:23

Yeah, I don't think anyone but the market "socialists" would dispute that. Work doesn't really exist under socialism. Services of a sort do - e.g. plumbing, painting etc., and yes, possibly sex services if people want to do that sort of thing.

I would say that work exists but jobs do not.

I completed the thought for you.

You've done no such thing.

If there is a problem between offer and demand, as you expect, many services in the society might suffer from a similar type of problem.

What in the name of Marx is "offer and demand"?

GanzEgal

9th October 2014, 13:30

In socialism, there would be no competition between colleagues at work
On the planet where I live, there is sometimes competition between colleagues (of varying seriousness, depending on personality and sometimes rivalry or hatred developing between two or more persons, for various reasons). To get promoted, etc.

Oh, and on my planet there is also rivalry in people's love life. You know those nasty drunken cats tearing each other's hair and calling each other whore in front of a restaurant on a Saturday night, because they both would like to catch the same man.

There are reasons why people resort to violence of various degree, up to murder, and I don't see a reason to _trust_ that such behaviour of humans will go away. We can _wish_ that it hopefully will become rarer in future, but the difference between wishing and trusting is the same as: would you sell the house where your family and children live, and take the money to the nearest casino, and put it all on black in the roulette? You can _wish_ that it will be black next round, but you should not _trust_ that this will happen, because you have no way of being sure that your wish will certainly come true.

Almost everything explodes if you know what you're doing (or alternately, if you don't). Laptop batteries can explode. Does that mean batteries should be banned?
I am quite happy with the list of banned substances and items, as has been developed by modern western societies.

Except you talked about prohibiting sexual behaviour so that people get an equal amount of sexual partners.
You seem to assume that Socialism would remove the currently popular ban on polygamy. I am not sure that people would democratically make such a decision. Well, the society either promotes people's equal happiness in life, or ignores it. If there is any real and free competition in politics, people will vote the policies or politicians who defend their happiness in life. So any such policies would rise or fall based on how the voting population feels about the situation, is the state doing too much or too little to promote people's happiness in a specific issue.

Another thing comes in mind, actually the most widespread law for regulating people's sexuality is the nearly universal ban on nudity in public places. There are so many moral norms in a modern society, and I am not convinced that the world becoming Socialist would overnight change people's minds, so that they would democratically choose to abolish all such norms and laws from the society. But if people would change their minds and vote for such change, fine, let them have what they want. Why do we need to debate an issue which people will democratically decide in future?

Lord Testicles

9th October 2014, 13:33

Hey GanzEgal, I noticed that you didn't answer my question (again!) so I'm going to ask you again:

What do you expect to have to offer in payment for sex? Do you just expect that there will be a section of society that you can demand sex from at any time?

GanzEgal

9th October 2014, 13:48

What in the name of Marx is "offer and demand"?
Demand = people want to receive a service or product. For example, a person walking on the street suddenly gets the idea in his head that he wants to eat a cone of vanilla-toffee ice cream with chocolate sauce.

Offer = services or products are available for consumers. For example, there happens to be an ice cream kiosk in the streetcorner, because it is perceived as a good location where people often want to have an ice cream.

Offer can inspire demand. The presence of an ice cream kiosk may inspire passers-by to want an ice cream. Just try to walk past the kiosk with your five-year old child...

GanzEgal

9th October 2014, 13:56

I noticed that you didn't answer my question (...)
What do you expect to have to offer in payment for sex?
I did answer the question, but let me answer it again: I don't expect there to be any fundamental difference in my ability to "pay" for erotic services compared to other services. You have repeatedly refused to explain, why you expect a difference to exist in people's ability to "pay" for this service compared to other services in the society, and what that difference would be.

I have my preferences, how the commodity distribution should be organized, but I don't want to disturb this discussion with that topic. Distribution of goods has its own threads, and I have written my opinions about the topic in those threads.

cyu

9th October 2014, 15:02

Depending on your worldview, different people see things through different filters. For example, anarchists may see everything as different versions of power-relationships. Others may seen the same relationship as property - as some people claiming "ownership" over others. Still others have worldviews focused more heavily on racial or ethnic conflict.

Sometimes the different worldviews lead to differences of opinion, but sometimes they also arrive at the same destination through different roads. For example, what does it mean to abolish "ownership" of children or "ownership" of a spouse? If it means you can no longer impose your power and control over them without their consent, then what support structures and protective structures in society has to change to allow that?

Lord Testicles

9th October 2014, 15:25

Demand = people want to receive a service or product. For example, a person walking on the street suddenly gets the idea in his head that he wants to eat a cone of vanilla-toffee ice cream with chocolate sauce.

Offer = services or products are available for consumers. For example, there happens to be an ice cream kiosk in the streetcorner, because it is perceived as a good location where people often want to have an ice cream.

Offer can inspire demand. The presence of an ice cream kiosk may inspire passers-by to want an ice cream. Just try to walk past the kiosk with your five-year old child...

What you mean to say then is: Supply and demand. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand)

I did answer the question, but let me answer it again: I don't expect there to be any fundamental difference in my ability to "pay" for erotic services compared to other services. You have repeatedly refused to explain, why you expect a difference to exist in people's ability to "pay" for this service compared to other services in the society, and what that difference would be.

You don't seem to understand. The only reason somebody would have sex with you in a socialist society is simply and solely because they want to have sex with you, not because you have a demand for sex. If nobody wants to have sex with you then you will simply die a virgin. Tough shit, deal with it.

Also, yet again you fail to answer my question, I'll reword it to make it easier for you to understand since there is obviously an articulation or comprehension problem going on here (or more likely you are a wilfully ignorant third-rate troll):

If you can't get sex in the normal human way and you require "a service" but that "service" is totally at the discretion of the person providing it, then why would they provide it to you when all they get out of it is having sex with someone they didn't want to have sex with?

So taking the above into consideration do you just expect that there will be a section of society that you can demand sex from at any time?

Rosa Partizan

9th October 2014, 15:56

how do you imagine would such a service be used? By men and women equally?

(this is adressed to everyone)

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

9th October 2014, 16:49

On the planet where I live, there is sometimes competition between colleagues (of varying seriousness, depending on personality and sometimes rivalry or hatred developing between two or more persons, for various reasons). To get promoted, etc.

Curiously enough, that happens on my planet as well. Of course, it happens as a consequence of capitalism - for one thing, in socialism there would be no possibility of anyone being promoted. Managerial functions, to the extent that they would exist, would be simply that, functions, and for most people not particularly attractive ones either.

Oh, and on my planet there is also rivalry in people's love life. You know those nasty drunken cats tearing each other's hair and calling each other whore in front of a restaurant on a Saturday night, because they both would like to catch the same man.

You seem to have mashed together two or three stereotypes, but alright. How many of these pull out nuclear weapons? Are you seriously proposing is that the only thing that stops them from A-bombing the restaurant are the bourgeois police? What an odd world you live in.

There are reasons why people resort to violence of various degree, up to murder, and I don't see a reason to _trust_ that such behaviour of humans will go away. We can _wish_ that it hopefully will become rarer in future, but the difference between wishing and trusting is the same as: would you sell the house where your family and children live, and take the money to the nearest casino, and put it all on black in the roulette? You can _wish_ that it will be black next round, but you should not _trust_ that this will happen, because you have no way of being sure that your wish will certainly come true.

The point is that the reasons people resort to violence are generally due to the class system, and that in any case, most nonconsensual violent behaviour can be stopped without a special body of armed men known as the police if we're being very polite. In fact the police is a relatively recent institution, and anyone who has been the victim of a crime can tell you how abysmally useless the cops are (unless you're an executive whose money has been stolen or something to that effect).

I am quite happy with the list of banned substances and items, as has been developed by modern western societies.

Which is besides the point. Without the police, without the state, your "list... as has been developed by modern western societies" will be about as authoritative as my shopping list.

You seem to assume that Socialism would remove the currently popular ban on polygamy. I am not sure that people would democratically make such a decision. Well, the society either promotes people's equal happiness in life, or ignores it. If there is any real and free competition in politics, people will vote the policies or politicians who defend their happiness in life. So any such policies would rise or fall based on how the voting population feels about the situation, is the state doing too much or too little to promote people's happiness in a specific issue.

Another thing comes in mind, actually the most widespread law for regulating people's sexuality is the nearly universal ban on nudity in public places. There are so many moral norms in a modern society, and I am not convinced that the world becoming Socialist would overnight change people's minds, so that they would democratically choose to abolish all such norms and laws from the society. But if people would change their minds and vote for such change, fine, let them have what they want. Why do we need to debate an issue which people will democratically decide in future?

And here is another crucial mistake: socialism is not democratic. In socialism, all state forms have withered away, including democracy. A socialist society can't vote to ban polygamy or nudity or homosexuality or whatever as a matter of definition - the only voting will be on matters of administration of things and direction of the process of production, as Engels puts it.

how do you imagine would such a service be used? By men and women equally?

Yes, and provided by men and women equally as well - obviously in a socialist society sex (being biologically male or female) would not be an object, and gender in the sense of social roles would not exist.

ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт

9th October 2014, 17:33

... hobby workshops for building your own nuke should be as illegal as they are in our current society.

Technically, there aren't any laws against those specific things. It's because the material is so damn hazardous. Plus, building a nuclear weapon without the sovereign government's sanction poses a threat to the ruling class.

Unless you mean illegal hobby nuke-building workshops are a problem in your area, like meth labs around here.

GanzEgal

9th October 2014, 18:13

Technically, there aren't any laws against those specific things. It's because the material is so damn hazardous.
In nearly every country it is illegal for an average citizen to possess any weapons more effective than a rifle. Such as hand grenades, missiles, cluster bombs, etc.

I like it to stay that way, but what matter is what the wider population will democratically decide, and I believe they think this way too.

GanzEgal

9th October 2014, 18:28

Without the police, without the state, your "list... as has been developed by modern western societies" will be about as authoritative as my shopping list.
The law protects people from many hazards and accidents. When a policeman gives you a ticket for speeding on the road, it sucks, but the big picture is that it calms down people's gas pedal and thus saves lives. It is a big and seemingly unfounded assumption that human population would decide to end all laws, and their enforcement by the police force. There are so many benefits from laws and law enforcement.

What is intersting is how you assume that the society will be, because it doctrinally "should" be such, without any reference to the democratic will of people. Doctrines don't rule the world, doctrines are only words on paper. Human live and rule, so the society will be what the majority of humans will want it to be like. There is no destiny which would lead mankind to any society model other than what they themselves prefer and decide.

And here is another crucial mistake: socialism is not democratic. In socialism, all state forms have withered away, including democracy. A socialist society can't vote to ban polygamy or nudity or homosexuality or whatever as a matter of definition - the only voting will be on matters of administration of things and direction
The paragraph above was actually a reply on this quote, but cutting and pasting text with iPad is so damn clumsy and difficult, I will skip the nearly impossible task of moving this quote before the paragraph above.

GanzEgal

9th October 2014, 18:46

and provided by men and women equally as well - obviously in a socialist society sex (being biologically male or female) would not be an object, and gender in the sense of social roles would not exist.
You make two big assumptions:

1) The vast majority of humans will want to reject their biological and social gender status, to view themselves as genderless. Of course they can do so, if they want, but I have my doubts whether they will or not.

2) Women will start to consume erotic services equally much as men (or men equally little as women). Men don't consume erotic services because they were raised under this or that political doctrine, the difference in demand for erotic services among males and females has mainly biological reasons. The society becoming Socialist would not affect the biological reasons, and therefore I don't see a reason to expect the kind of a dramatic change in men's and women's demand for erotic services as you assume.

GanzEgal

9th October 2014, 19:09

The only reason somebody would have sex with you in a socialist society is simply and solely because they want to have sex with you, not because you have a demand for sex. If nobody wants to have sex with you then you will simply die a virgin. Tough shit, deal with it.
I hope this will not be daily reality for citizens seeking _other_ services too in the society. I have tried to squeeze out of you the reason _why_ you think that workers would happily, smoothly and abundantly organize and provide every other possible and necessary service to all citizens in the society, but erotic services not.

If you can't get sex in the normal human way and you require "a service" but that "service" is totally at the discretion of the person providing it, then why would they provide it to you when all they get out of it is having sex with someone they didn't want to have sex with?
Erotic services are of interest to men of all relationship statuses. It is quality and variety of the experience that attracts the consumer. As beautiful as the Hollywood dream is of an eternal love with the One and Only married spouse, in reality people get bored with their sex lives, most notably in middle age, and become interested in the erotic quality and exciting variety of what the sex industry has to offer.

So now you at least know who and why uses erotic services. Single men who cannot find any girlfriend whatsoever are a minority of the customers.

Why a specific customer would get service, I believe that the population likes to have a law that discrimination of customers is illegal. No matter what service or product your business offers, it is illegal to sell ice cream to one customer and say no to the next customer, just because you don't like his face. I believe that population want to have anti-discriminatory laws of such kind. Under such a law, who chooses a profession in the sex industry will serve all customers, or then will not work in the profession at all.

GanzEgal

9th October 2014, 19:14

how do you imagine would such a service be used? By men and women equally?
I imagine that the statistical share of female customers may rise a bit, but not radically, unless such types of services are invented which specifically attract women more than the currently existing ones do.

It is a sheer fact that nearly all men get an orgasm nearly every time when they have sex, but majority of women get an orgasm only seldom. This sheer biological reason (which might be correctable by future medical science, if we consider it an unwanted disadvantage in women) explains why the vast majority of consumers of erotic services are men, and probably will be men also in the foreseeable future.

As for who provides the services, the most popular erotic services are heterosexual, where man is the customer. The second most popular services are homosexual, where man is both the customer and the service provider. Then I am not sure which of the least popular types is more popular, heterosexual services where woman is the customer, or homosexual services where the customer and service provider are women.

Lord Testicles

9th October 2014, 19:22

I hope this will not be daily reality for citizens seeking _other_ services too in the society. I have tried to squeeze out of you the reason _why_ you think that workers would happily, smoothly and abundantly organize and provide every other possible and necessary service to all citizens in the society, but erotic services not.

Society is an aggregation of individuals and as such it should reflect the wants and needs of those individuals. However, individuals in that society should only provide what they want to provide not what others what them to provide. There could be a demand for live human targets from certain sections of the hunting community but those live human targets shouldn't be provided unless someone wants to be a human target and all it entails. Similarly, you may want to have sex with someone but if they don't want to have sex with you then I'm afraid that your needs will not be met.

Erotic services are of interest to men of all relationship statuses. It is quality and variety of the experience that attracts the consumer. As beautiful as the Hollywood dream is of an eternal love with the One and Only married spouse, in reality people get bored with their sex lives, most notably in middle age, and become interested in the erotic quality and exciting variety of what the sex industry has to offer.

So now you at least know who and why uses erotic services. Single men who cannot find any girlfriend whatsoever are a minority of the customers.

Why a specific customer would get service, I believe that the population likes to have a law that discrimination of customers is illegal. No matter what service or product your business offers, it is illegal to sell ice cream to one customer and say no to the next customer, just because you don't like his face. I believe that population want to have anti-discriminatory laws of such kind. Under such a law, who chooses a profession in the sex industry will serve all customers, or then will not work in the profession at all.

Well done, you've explained why someone would want a prostitute but that's not what I asked. Go back, read the question slowly and try again.

Rosa Partizan

9th October 2014, 19:35

I imagine that the statistical share of female customers may rise a bit, but not radically, unless such types of services are invented which specifically attract women more than the currently existing ones do.

It is a sheer fact that nearly all men get an orgasm nearly every time when they have sex, but majority of women get an orgasm only seldom. This sheer biological reason (which might be correctable by future medical science, if we consider it an unwanted disadvantage in women) explains why the vast majority of consumers of erotic services are men, and probably will be men also in the foreseeable future.

As for who provides the services, the most popular erotic services are heterosexual, where man is the customer. The second most popular services are homosexual, where man is both the customer and the service provider. Then I am not sure which of the least popular types is more popular, heterosexual services where woman is the customer, or homosexual services where the customer and service provider are women.

thanks for mansplaining. Why would anyone in their right mind want that? This is patriarchy at its best. Your explaination sucks ass. Women don't get orgasms that much because many are more preoccupied about sex than men, about social stigmata ("slut", "prude"), they don't learn to love their body, to explore it, there is too little knowledge about the clitoris, the fact that a clitoral orgasm is in no way worse than a vaginal one while man grow up with the notion that they are wild animals that have to want sex all the time. If you think patriarchy and communism can coexist, you're at best a fucking fool.

GanzEgal

9th October 2014, 20:42

Well done, you've explained why someone would want a prostitute but that's not what I asked. Go back, read the question slowly and try again.
The last paragraph of my answer explained, why the customer of these services (and any other services in the society) can trust that he or she will not be arbitrarily discriminated against by the service provider.

Lord Testicles

9th October 2014, 20:46

The last paragraph of my answer explained, why the customer of these services (and any other services in the society) can trust that he or she will not be arbitrarily discriminated against by the service provider.

I don't know what that has to do with the question I asked. Try again.

Rosa Partizan

9th October 2014, 20:50

skinz, stop it, for God's sake. You see he's a disgusting sexist pig upholdig patriarchy, women's exploitation and male entitlement.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

9th October 2014, 20:55

The law protects people from many hazards and accidents. When a policeman gives you a ticket for speeding on the road, it sucks, but the big picture is that it calms down people's gas pedal and thus saves lives.

That's the official line, anyway. In truth police speed control is relatively easy to avoid, and tickets can be made to disappear quite easily. And of course, most people don't plow through school zones at 100 kmph because most people aren't maniacs (in fact if you look at the maniacs who actually do plow through school zones at 100 kmph, most of them tend to be bored bourgeois kids, a species of man I am happy to say will be extinct in socialism, a fact that will probably warrant some sort of celebration).

I have no idea how the socialist society will handle traffic. It isn't far-fetched that the authorities will appoint specially designated traffic overseers. But these overseers would not be a police force - as they would rely on persuasive methods rather than coercive ones, and more importantly because they would not be a separate body of armed men, but ordinary people preforming temporarily a public function.

It is a big and seemingly unfounded assumption that human population would decide to end all laws, and their enforcement by the police force. There are so many benefits from laws and law enforcement.

Oh, and what might those be? Because, things like rape and hate crime are generally not stopped by the police, and the police often makes things much worse. Murder, well the police might lock up your murderer but by definition you won't be around to care for that. If you think you can call the police while someone is trying to kill you, and then the police will come and save you, you've been watching too many movies. In fact most states go out of their way to codify that the police are not obliged to help you. Involving police in domestic violence cases often backfires horribly. And so on.

What is intersting is how you assume that the society will be, because it doctrinally "should" be such, without any reference to the democratic will of people. Doctrines don't rule the world, doctrines are only words on paper. Human live and rule, so the society will be what the majority of humans will want it to be like. There is no destiny which would lead mankind to any society model other than what they themselves prefer and decide.

And that's the important difference between utopians and materialists - to utopians, socialism is at best a good idea, a policy to be enacted, after it has been tweaked to satisfy the utopian of course, mixed with other policies. To the materialist, however, the course of history is not determined by the ideas people have, but by the economic base of society. Therefore, even though no one wanted to be a slave, and slaves would at times outnumber freedmen and slaveowners, slavery was the dominant social form in one period of the development of the productive forces. So the statelesness of socialism is not a matter of what people want or don't want (although it amuses me to no end that someone would want to be restricted), but of the role of the state in class society. Likewise prohibitions on consensual behaviour such as polygamy, homosexuality etc. (these serving to bolster the family as a mechanism for the reproduction of the proletariat).

1) The vast majority of humans will want to reject their biological and social gender status, to view themselves as genderless. Of course they can do so, if they want, but I have my doubts whether they will or not.

Gender roles are part of the mechanism by which class society is reproduced by reproducing the ruled class of producers. No class society, no gender. It's as simple as that.

2) Women will start to consume erotic services equally much as men (or men equally little as women). Men don't consume erotic services because they were raised under this or that political doctrine, the difference in demand for erotic services among males and females has mainly biological reasons. The society becoming Socialist would not affect the biological reasons, and therefore I don't see a reason to expect the kind of a dramatic change in men's and women's demand for erotic services as you assume.

Oh, and the evidence for the claim that differences in demand for sexual services is due to biology would be...? If you think this is enough:

It is a sheer fact that nearly all men get an orgasm nearly every time when they have sex, but majority of women get an orgasm only seldom. This sheer biological reason (which might be correctable by future medical science, if we consider it an unwanted disadvantage in women) explains why the vast majority of consumers of erotic services are men, and probably will be men also in the foreseeable future.

(1) it doesn't follow (if anything, if women had such difficulties achieving orgasm you'd think they would require professional services more often);

(2) I've noticed a lot of people horribly exaggerate how difficult it is for a woman to achieve orgasm, particularly if we're deep in Fedora country (and, concurrently, to exaggerate the importance of an orgasm). Men do tend to - well, you could whack most men in the groin with a cricket bat and it'd be sticky after a few minutes - but most women can achieve orgasm with no major difficulties (particularly if their partner isn't inept and sexist).

GanzEgal

9th October 2014, 20:59

I don't know what that has to do with the question I asked. Try again.
Ask something, again, and I will answer it. If not, then we continue without an answer, which shouldn't be much of a problem, because this thread includes easily ten questions asked by someone from someone, without an answer.

Lord Testicles

9th October 2014, 21:02

skinz, stop it, for God's sake. You see he's a disgusting sexist pig upholdig patriarchy, women's exploitation and male entitlement.

I'm afraid that I find his inability to answer a simple question far too amusing to leave this wretched excuse of a human alone.

Ask something, again, and I will answer it. If not, then we continue without an answer, which shouldn't be much of a problem, because this thread includes easily ten questions asked by someone from someone, without an answer.

If you can't get sex in the normal human way and you require "a service" but that "service" is totally at the discretion of the person providing it, then why would they provide it to you when all they get out of it is having sex with someone they didn't want to have sex with?

Lord Testicles

9th October 2014, 21:16

Why a specific customer would get service, I believe that the population likes to have a law that discrimination of customers is illegal. No matter what service or product your business offers, it is illegal to sell ice cream to one customer and say no to the next customer, just because you don't like his face. I believe that population want to have anti-discriminatory laws of such kind. Under such a law, who chooses a profession in the sex industry will serve all customers, or then will not work in the profession at all.

I think I get what you're saying. What you're saying is that it should be illegal for a section of society to refuse you sex whenever you demand it.

So your answer to my question of:

"Do you expect that there will be a section of society that you can demand sex from at any time?"

Is not only a "yes" but also "it should be illegal for them to deny me."

Glad we could clear that up. What should be the consequences for people who refuse to have sex with you?

GanzEgal

9th October 2014, 21:16

If you can't get sex in the normal human way and you require "a service" but that "service" is totally at the discretion of the person providing it, then why would they provide it to you when all they get out of it is having sex with someone they didn't want to have sex with?
I answered that not being able to get sex in the normal human way is not the typical scenario, neither would it probably be legal to publicly provide a service (of any kind, including this kind) and then discriminate between customers as you may wish, so what you asked is irrelevant what comes to your description of the customer, and probably illegal what comes to your description of how the service provider would discriminate between customers.

ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт

9th October 2014, 21:18

I'm having trouble figuring out how we went from "people shouldn't be allowed to whip up nuclear weapons in their garages" to "some people shouldn't have the legal right to deny me access to their bodies."

Is anyone else confused or am I just an idiot?

GanzEgal

9th October 2014, 21:19

I think I get what you're saying. What you're saying is that it should be illegal for a section of society to refuse you sex whenever you demand it.

So your answer to my question of:

"Do you expect that there will be a section of society that you can demand sex from at any time?"

Is not only a "yes" but also "it should be illegal for them to deny me."

Glad we could clear that up. What should be the consequences for people who refuse to have sex with you?
Good trolling.

This is the last time that I will repeat to you: a person can freely choose his or her profession, and also quit the profession if he or she dislikes the profession. If you work in a profession, you serve all customers without discrimination. If you don't want to do that, then you will not work in the profession.

Quail

9th October 2014, 21:21

Oh my, what has this thread become.

I really don't think that sex work will exist in a communist society in any recognisable form. The idea of communism is to liberate human beings from having to do stuff that they don't want to do in order to survive, which means that I find it very difficult to see why someone would have sex with someone unless they wanted to have sex with them. I can easily understand why someone in a capitalist society would have sex with someone to pay the bills, but if all your needs were provided for then you simply wouldn't want to do it. There may be people who would choose to have sex with people as a "service" but it would be on their terms rather than governed by a need for money.

So, I'm finding it difficult to see why sex wouldn't just be something done by consenting parties out of mutual desire - I certainly don't want to fight for a society where sex is anything else.

Lord Testicles

9th October 2014, 21:23

Good trolling.

This is the last time that I will repeat to you: a person can freely choose his or her profession, and also quit the profession if he or she dislikes the profession.

That's not trolling, it's the actual consequences of what you are proposing, so bearing that in mind: What should be the consequences for people who refuse to have sex with you? (since you've declared that it should be illegal to refuse sex)

EDIT:

If you don't want to do that, then you will not work in the profession.

So who do you imagine would work in a profession that they have no control over?

GanzEgal

9th October 2014, 21:28

That's not trolling, it's the actual consequences of what you are proposing, so bearing that in mind: What should be the consequences for people who refuse to have sex with you? (since you've declared that it should be illegal to refuse sex)
They would be prohibited from working in these types of services, if they refuse to serve all customers without discrimination, and their poor fate would be that they must go find themselves some other work.

GanzEgal

9th October 2014, 21:39

So who do you imagine would work in a profession that they have no control over?
The theory of who would do all the tasks that need to be done in the society, is a complex topic, worth its own thread.

My favourite solution is a job market based on offer and demand, and working time as the incentive to promote least wanted jobs. If too many people want to work as a fashion model, and too few people want to clean the toilets, we raise the weekly working time of fashion models, and reduce the weekly working time of toilet cleaners, by one hour per week. See what happens to demand of these jobs, with this new offer. Repeat until all jobs which have been deemed necessary in the society have enough job applicants.

But many people here envision a society where no such job market would exist, and all citizens would have the right to cherry-pick their favourite dream job, or do no work at all. Proponents of such a society have some questions to answer and problems to solve, because there are so many boring jobs, and so few interesting dream jobs, and yet all work needs to get done.

Lord Testicles

9th October 2014, 21:45

<Blah, blah blah, state capitalist wet dream, blah, blah, blah>

Who specifically would voluntarily do a job where they had to have sex with people they didn't like and it would be illegal to refuse anyone and why exactly would they do it?

ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт

9th October 2014, 21:56

I thought we were talking about communist society, in which commodity production has ceased to exist as a concept.

Why would there be, then, any such "industry" as sex work? If the consequences for denying a "customer" sex is to be "fired," how does being "fired" even function in communism? How is that even a consequence? Your every need is met, so labor is life's prime want. If you really want your labor to be sex, why do you have to obey a law saying that you may now never deny sex to a customer?

What are "customers" expected to do to "buy" sex? If the concept of money is obsolete, are they just asking a sex worker for sex? And if that's the case, who would voluntarily be a sex worker if they had no right to deny access to literally anyone who asks them? If the consequence for refusing sexual service to a customer is being disallowed from sex work, then why would anyone register as a sex worker instead of just "freelancing," trading sex now and again for things they want that they can't get without the special effort of a specific person?

This concept makes so very little sense, which is why you're being regarded as a borderline rape apologist right now. You're doing way too much work to shoehorn people not being allowed to say no to your requests for sex into communism, which is to say any amount of work.

Again, I think you're underestimating what a good shower can do for your chances at receiving consensual relations.

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

9th October 2014, 21:56

Good trolling.

This is the last time that I will repeat to you: a person can freely choose his or her profession, and also quit the profession if he or she dislikes the profession. If you work in a profession, you serve all customers without discrimination. If you don't want to do that, then you will not work in the profession.

Even if this idea of yours were to take hold, what would prevent the "service" person from simply quitting their profession each time you tried to contract them and then rejoining the profession once you had left the premises?

Lord Testicles

9th October 2014, 22:00

I thought we were talking about communist society, in which commodity production has ceased to exist as a concept.

I think it's quite clear that GanzEgal isn't a communist of any description.

ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт

9th October 2014, 22:03

Even if this idea of yours were to take hold, what would prevent the "service" person from simply quitting their profession each time you tried to contract them and then rejoining the profession once you had left the premises?

I think anybody in a position of authority in this "service" would probably bend the rules to allow this. It doesn't make sense that any such service would exist in the first place, but if it did, I have enough faith in workers to not force each other to have sex with objectively awful people (such as the people who invented this to begin with).

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

9th October 2014, 22:10

There are definitely an abundance of laws and regulations in his conception of communism if nothing else. Who the hell is going to enforce it all?

Art Vandelay

9th October 2014, 22:26

I really don't think that sex work will exist in a communist society in any recognisable form.

It wouldn't. If sex work denotes, as I understand it, the exchange of sexual services for material compensation, it would be impossible for it to exist under communism. Exchange presupposes a market of some form, while communism is a society of free producers.

GanzEgal

10th October 2014, 07:21

Who specifically would voluntarily do a job where they had to have sex with people they didn't like and it would be illegal to refuse anyone and why exactly would they do it?
If we assume that this job would be more unwanted than the average job in the society, the labour market would make a better offer, by shortening the working time per week, until enough applicants are interested in undesirability of the work vs. benefits of the short working time. If the job is so undesirable that nobody wants to take it even with a very short working time, then that would be a problem, and the nature of the work would need to be neutralized. There are many different service models in the erotic industry, and prostitution is not even the most popular of them, in part because softer service models are more comfortable for the service providers.

Even if this idea of yours were to take hold, what would prevent the "service" person from simply quitting their profession each time you tried to contract them and then rejoining the profession once you had left the premises?
The same question could apply to a worker at a hamburger kiosk. If a specific worker always closes the kiosk and walks out of the backdoor, when black customers arrive, and then always retakes the job when the blacks have gone away, it would be interpreted as illegal discrimination of customers. Or the law text would specifically criminalize this type of action, so there would be no need for interpretation and expansion of the text of the law.

There are many jobs in which it would be nice to cherry-pick your customers. Medical doctors don't exactly enjoy examining old patients who suffer from illnesses of the grossest and smelliest kind. If you are a doctor, you treat every patient of your specialty without discrimination, or then you no longer are a doctor.

ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт

10th October 2014, 07:23

... the labour market ...

See, what had us confused is that we thought you were talking about communism.

Rosa Partizan

10th October 2014, 08:39

You're a special kind of stupid, aren't ya? An ill, old person needs cure, a not so attractive person doesn't need sex the same way. Why is this disgusting example of male entitlement not banned yet?

GanzEgal

10th October 2014, 09:36

this disgusting example of male entitlement
Many around here theorize that males and females will in future behave more uniformly in sexual issues than they nowadays do. If so, then there will be no specific entitlement of this or that gender in this issue. If it is fair to accuse individual men of entitlement, when they only behave in a way they have subconsciously learned to behave, without making a conscious personal decision to become this or that kind of an evil person.

GanzEgal

10th October 2014, 09:42

An ill, old person needs cure
A closer look behind the curtains of hospitals also includes the reality that we are unable to cure some diseases, people will die and we can do nothing about it. If it were not illegal for a doctor to leave a patient untreated, we would see more doctors making personal decisions of leaving an old seemingly incurable patient with less medical attention that is now given, and giving more priority to younger cases or cases where the doctor is more convinced of being able to actually get the medical problem cured before the person will die.

robbo203

10th October 2014, 10:52

Communism will surely be the end of family as we know it now. Family is a bourgeois institution to generate more and more economical participators, effectively fueling capitalism at the cost of women.
However, that doesn't mean that in communism you'll have to kill your father at the age of 16 to prove your adulthood. The bourgeois family with its reactionary features (power relations, patriarchy etc.) and its overall definition of membership will transform into a "socialist" family, free from such features.

Yes good point. It is is important to distinguish between "the family" as an institution per se - which is a pretty elastic term - and the particular form this institution tends to take (with the emphasis on "tends") in capitalism or in property based societies in general. It is pretty clear that the family as an institution has always existed throughout human history and there is no reason whatsoever to think it will not continue in socialism. The family unit was pivotal to the social structure of hunter gatherer societies - "segmentary lineage" societies in anthropospeak - as well as the process of "fissioning" when hunter gatherer bands broke up along close familial lines whether for environmental reasons or because of personality conflicts within the band or whatever...

There is plenty of stuff on the internet about this but here at random are some links to peruse See for example this

http://archive.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/uu13se/uu13se02.htm

and this

http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_16_04_01_mayor.pdf

My only reservation has to do with what form the family will take under socialism. I dont think there will be simply one form but rather a variety of forms - from the nuclear to extended, from consanguinal to unrelated co-habitants. The recent legalisation and greater tolerance shown towards same sex marriages in some parts of the world today is a very welcome development indeed but it also gives a hint of the potential range of family types in a future socialist society. There may even be some who chose not to live in any kind of permanent or semi permanent domestic context but to continually roam the world in search of new experiences and new contacts. That wouldn't be my cup of tea - probably the same would be true of most people - but each to their own, I say. Socialism makes this diversity and variety possible

The point is it would be sheer folly, not to say extremely arrogant, to claim as a broad generalisation, or lay down the rule, that the "family will disappear" in a socialist society. It makes no more sense to say this than to say factories, automobiles and computer laptops will disappear in a socialist society becuase they all happened to be the products of capitalist society

cyu

10th October 2014, 11:39

Medical doctors don't exactly enjoy examining old patients who suffer from illnesses of the grossest and smelliest kind. If you are a doctor, you treat every patient of your specialty without discrimination, or then you no longer are a doctor. If you become a teacher only so you can interact with students who are more informed than you, then what's the point of becoming a teacher?

If you become a doctor only for the pay or social status, that is just a symptom of capitalism.

Why else might someone choose to become a doctor?

...also remember that some who consider themselves communists, also consider themselves anarchists - so any talk of "laws" or "requirements" would tend to go in one ear and out the other.

ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт

11th October 2014, 06:20

Note, comrades, that this fellow is drawing a parallel between physicians treating the ill and sex workers being unable to refuse service to a prospective client.

GanzEgal

11th October 2014, 07:07

Note, comrades, that this fellow is drawing a parallel between physicians treating the ill and sex workers being unable to refuse service to a prospective client.
And I have also formulated the parallel in no way unclear way: arbitrary discrimination of customers should be illegal in professional services, no matter what the business is. If someone wants to promote a society where a citizen will arbitrarily receive services or be denied them, well I don't.

ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт

11th October 2014, 07:21

In other words, you don't want communism.

GanzEgal

11th October 2014, 09:21

I don't want discrimination or inequality. If Communism fails to defend individuals against them, that would be a moral-philosophical and political weakness.

Scheveningen

11th October 2014, 09:24

And I have also formulated the parallel in no way unclear way: arbitrary discrimination of customers should be illegal in professional services, no matter what the business is. If someone wants to promote a society where a citizen will arbitrarily receive services or be denied them, well I don't. 'customers', 'professional services, 'business'. 'Jobs'.

Seriously, this is some pretty commodified shit. That horror of a society already exists.

Rosa Partizan

11th October 2014, 09:38

you really don't understand why NO ONE can claim a right to something that depends on personal attraction, individual preferences etc. We already live in a world where female bodies are commodified and commercialized and female sexuality subordinated to the one with power and/or money. How would your society be any improvement to that deeply patriarchal shit we're living in currently? Why the fuck do you feel entitled to a female body? What kind of man doesn't give a shit if the other person WANTS to have sex with him, if the other person can claim the right to get their own satisfaction? In some way, johns remind me of psychopaths and rapists, true story.

Quail

11th October 2014, 09:55

I don't want discrimination or inequality. If Communism fails to defend individuals against them, that would be a moral-philosophical and political weakness.

Um... Someone refusing to have sex with you is not inequality or discrimination. You are not entitled to sex. Nobody is. Just because some people might want sex but be unable to get it, doesn't mean that they should be able to make someone sleep with them. That's all kinds of messed up, and yeah, sexist. You're not going to last long here if you continue down this road... I would advise you to go away and have a proper think about what you're saying and the implications of it.

GanzEgal

11th October 2014, 11:06

I see the (nearly) universal belief here that prostitution would not be among the services available in Socialism, because nobody out of 7 billion humans would want to work in the job. On the other hand, I understand that no police force or law would ban it either, should anyone provide the service, against all odds and expectations.

Gigolos (heterosexual male prostitutes) and to some extent also male homosexual prostitutes would apparently exist, as much as they now do, for the same reasons as they now do, in the absence of any law or other effect which would reduce or prevent such activities.

Among heterosexual male customers the public (and therefore also political) demand for erotic pleasure would skyrocket, if demand stays but offer disappears. Would the red lights district then have private nude dancing shows, as night clubs have in countries where prostitution is illegal. While this thougt is not exactly palatable for many feminists, who see sexual objectification of women in the circumstances, it is a much clearer fact than in the case of prostitution, that large numbers of attractive young(ish) women enjoy being targets of men's erotic attention, wearing with pride super short mini skirts and the smallest bikini in shop shelf (often topless, in Mediterranean countries), and would feel personal pride and sense of superiority (compared to less attractive women) by working in such a service. In the absence of laws forbidding it, attractive women with such a mindset would run such services. Such activity would not be completely free from political opposition, because a varying number of women are concerned about free competition from such erotically attractive women, and would prefer to politically cause total absence of such competition in their neighbourhood. Plus the occasional feminist who opposes the activity on ideological grounds, because of perceived sexual objectification of women.

What practically happens behind the curtains is the closest you can get to having sex, without actually touching the genitals of another person (but other body parts may possibly get touched). Orgasm is produced by the customer himself, self-service. Or in countries where legal, possibly by manual massage given by the service provider.

Lord Testicles

11th October 2014, 11:23

I don't want discrimination or inequality. If Communism fails to defend individuals against them, that would be a moral-philosophical and political weakness.

No, you want human sex toys who would be bound by law to not refuse you sex (is this legalised rape? It sure sounds like it.) You think you can achieve this state of being by having some overlord manipulate a labour market so that prostitutes would work less hours then the rest of society therefore attracting worker who apparently want to work low hours but don't want any control in their workplace. In short, you're a loon.

This guy is a stupid prick, can we ban this oxygen thief now?

Rosa Partizan

11th October 2014, 11:23

I see the (nearly) universal belief here that prostitution would not be among the services available in Socialism, because nobody out of 7 billion humans would want to work in the job.Fuck NO. You don't get the easiest market mechanisms, right? It wouldn't exist not because nobody wants to do it, but because the demand isn't there. I would such a society expect to care if their sex partner in question actually wants to sleep with them out of mutual desire or not. If everyone wants an equal sexual partnership, with the other person being able to say no and being able to voice their own preferences, then such "services" will not exist.

Rosa Partizan

11th October 2014, 11:27

Fucking hell. This guy is a stupid prick, can we ban this oxygen thief now?

oh and feminists are ugly and jealous, this is hilarious :laugh:
look, GanzEgal, I'm pretty hot and I could get almost any heterosexual guy to sleep with me, but because my sexual autonomy and the chance to get my own satisfaction is my highest priority in such encounters, I would never ever offer such a "service" to anyone, especially when I'd not be able to say no.

Quail

11th October 2014, 11:48

Fuck your "socialism". You are not my comrade, you disgusting sexist shit.

I see the (nearly) universal belief here that prostitution would not be among the services available in Socialism, because nobody out of 7 billion humans would want to work in the job. On the other hand, I understand that no police force or law would ban it either, should anyone provide the service, against all odds and expectations.

I addressed this: "There may be people who would choose to have sex with people as a "service" but it would be on their terms rather than governed by a need for money."

Gigolos (heterosexual male prostitutes) and to some extent also male homosexual prostitutes would apparently exist, as much as they now do, for the same reasons as they now do, in the absence of any law or other effect which would reduce or prevent such activities.
Why would they exist for the same reasons as they do now? The reason sex work exists now is because people need to pay their bills. No work would exist in a communist society "for the same reason as it does now".

Among heterosexual male customers the public (and therefore also political) demand for erotic pleasure would skyrocket, if demand stays but offer disappears. Would the red lights district then have private nude dancing shows, as night clubs have in countries where prostitution is illegal. While this thougt is not exactly palatable for many feminists, who see sexual objectification of women in the circumstances, it is a much clearer fact than in the case of prostitution, that large numbers of attractive young(ish) women enjoy being targets of men's erotic attention, wearing with pride super short mini skirts and the smallest bikini in shop shelf (often topless, in Mediterranean countries), and would feel personal pride and sense of superiority (compared to less attractive women) by working in such a service. In the absence of laws forbidding it, attractive women with such a mindset would run such services. Such activity would not be completely free from political opposition, because a varying number of women are concerned about free competition from such erotically attractive women, and would prefer to politically cause total absence of such competition in their neighbourhood. Plus the occasional feminist who opposes the activity on ideological grounds, because of perceived sexual objectification of women.
This made me really angry. As I said above, nobody is entitled to sex. I don't give a fuck if the "demand" for sex work exists, people are under no obligation whatsoever to have sex with a bunch of entitled pricks who think they deserve sex. Sex is about mutual consent and pleasure and it's not a fucking entitlement.

Also what the fuck are you on about with this sentence? "Such activity would not be completely free from political opposition, because a varying number of women are concerned about free competition from such erotically attractive women, and would prefer to politically cause total absence of such competition in their neighbourhood." Oh of course, women resent Johns because they're jealous of the sex workers... It's definitely not because they resent dickheads who believe they're entitled to sex and specifically women's bodies.

What practically happens behind the curtains is the closest you can get to having sex, without actually touching the genitals of another person (but other body parts may possibly get touched). Orgasm is produced by the customer himself, self-service. Or in countries where legal, possibly by manual massage given by the service provider.
:confused: Not sure what you're trying to say here.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

11th October 2014, 12:28

I addressed this: "There may be people who would choose to have sex with people as a "service" but it would be on their terms rather than governed by a need for money."

Not to mention that under no circumstances could they be forced to have sex with anyone. Just like, if the person who was supposed to fix your computer doesn't come or whatever, you couldn't kidnap them and force them to provide a service (in fact you can't do that now, either). What GanzEgal seemed to have in mind sounds more like slavery than wage labour to be honest.

Rosa Partizan

11th October 2014, 12:35

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

11th October 2014, 12:41

Not sure in how far the term "service" applies then at all. If you sleep with someone and no financial need is behind it, nor pressure of any kind (blackmailing or whatever), you really WANT it and you can stop whatever you want and you don't have to agree on anything you don't want, is this a service then? I mean, yes, you could say "ohhhh that poor ugly guy that can't get laid, I'll cheer him up with a blowjob", do you think the term applies then?

It applies in the same sense in which it applies to anything in socialism, I suppose. All of the things you list would be true for any service in socialism - fixing computers, working in creches and so on.

I think what separates this semi-formal service from a friend coming over to fix your computer or give you a blowjob or whatever is that you wouldn't have to know the person providing the service. Probably there would be some sort of listing and you would call or e-mail or send a touchable hologram to the person who has decided to provide a service, book an appointment and so on. But if the person doesn't want to provide the service or changes their mind, though luck. I'm sure lubricant at least would be widely available.

ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт

11th October 2014, 17:09

This gent has spent an entire thread trying to spin communism to rationalize rape, and he's been using vocabulary that suggests he doesn't know the difference between communism and capitalism.

To summarize: overt rape apologia, no idea what communism is.

For real, comrades. How is this guy not so banned yet?

Magón

11th October 2014, 17:17

ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт

11th October 2014, 17:21

My apologies, then. I thought he was still around and that his "banned" was something he wrote in, like Mistress Sinistra does.

cyu

13th October 2014, 06:05

Many pro-capitalist "libertarians" assume socialism means that they'll be forced to work for the poor - reverse exploitation, in which the rich do all the work, while the poor are lazy and live off the fruits of the labor of the rich. They assume socialism means forced labor - that everyone will be forced to provide for everyone else - rather like that troll-like view of being forced to provide sex work for everyone else.

Anarchists don't see socialism like that though. We (or at least my kind of anarchists) don't seek to impose control over other people - instead, we ignore existing property laws. If you won't control people, then you can't direct sex work, nor can you force people to feed the poor. Many pro-capitalists aren't able to wrap their heads around how anarchists can have socialism if nobody is forced to feed the poor. I'd say their main problem is their "axiom of property" - if anarchists throw that out, then any poor person (or their allies) can simply seize the means of production themselves, without forcing labor on anyone else.