Communism on Prostitution and Abortion

[FlocKster]

Are there general communist stances on prostitution (considering income equality) and abortion?

[bricolage]

Why are the two grouped together?

[bricolage]

And what does it mean to answer 'Yes' or 'No' to sex work?

[FlocKster]

Well, they're related, I think a second thread is obsolete.

No = Against
Yes = Advocate

[Patchd]

Are we talking about our context, or in a communist society? If the latter, all work will be conceived of in a completely different manner. There would not be prostitutes, like there would not be administrative assistants or bricklayers. As Rafiq put it in another thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2849219&postcount=8);


I mean, what a gross perversion of Marx - his bastardization to conform to the ethics of consumerism. No, Marx's point was very simply that the fixation of social activity will cease to exist, one can become LEARNED in any profession they want and do this. And guess what - his point was that the predispositions to this were ALREADY in capitalism. One can, formally, already choose any profession they want, the problem is that - again - private property. For example, in Asiatic societies, or in Feudalism, on has a specific caste, a specific role, and that's all they're capable of doing - they're not even allowed to learn to do another profession. Marx's point is that in a Communist society, the next step to the dissolution of this, a supersession of capitalist property relations, would be the end of professions as such - wherein in capitalism one can "choose" their profession, in Communism there will be no professions as such.

[Hatshepsut]

Why are the two grouped together?

Yah. There's two questions. Communism by now is mostly "yes" on abortion, although there have been pro-natalist periods when abortion was discouraged, especially in the early years after major wars. Communism doesn't like sex for sale or making it a public good for that matter. Sex work objectifies young ladies, converting them into a fetishized commodity.

[Patchd]

Yah. There's two questions. Communism by now is mostly "yes" on abortion, although there have been pro-natalist periods when abortion was discouraged, especially in the early years after major wars. Communism doesn't like sex for sale or making it a public good for that matter. Sex work objectifies young ladies, converting them into a fetishized commodity.

But in the context of capitalism, surely its specifically the sex work that is the commodity, and not the individual who engages in sex work (which includes male, female and genderqueer prostitutes as well), like all work, our labour power is reduced to a commodity in capitalism. Given though, there is further social commentary regarding sex work, especially regarding female prostitution. All whores are workers and all workers are whores.

I find many communists are supporters of sex workers and their struggle (organised amongst others or not) in capitalism. There is the issue of trafficking, but this is not an issue unique to, nor does it characterise all sex work.

[Hatshepsut]

I find many communists are supporters of sex workers and their struggle...

As far as the ability of sex workers to live through that particular labor activity, I don't see Communists objecting. We should support all struggle against capitalism. While I favor ending imprisonment of sex workers (pardon if I overlooked some of the diversity in this field as the "ladies section" jumped into my aging mind), I'm not sure I would support a legalization of prostitution as an organized industry. That just turns the Pimp into a new stock company you can invest in; and given the maturity and sophistication of capitalism today, I tend to think creation of more industrial concerns will complicate struggle.

On an interim basis, one can petition for governments and police to leave such folks alone, intervening only insofar as disease prevention (education, condoms, medical care) and protection from violence (shelters, investigation of traffickers, investigation of incidents of jealousy by intimate partners) require. On the latter, I doubt Communism is a big fan of the family; although we must admit that sexual possessiveness and domestic violence remain forces to reckon with, and that these have connections with sex workers and their customers.

[Patchd]

I'm not sure I would support a legalization of prostitution as an organized industry. That just turns the Pimp into a new stock company you can invest in; and given the maturity and sophistication of capitalism today, I tend to think creation of more industrial concerns will complicate struggle.

I agree, I don't think communists should call for legalisation of sex work for those very reasons. I think an approach of decriminalisation will bring sex work into the ~formal~ economy and with it greater protections and flexibility regarding general employment conditions for those who participate in them. I suspect this approach will still be in the favour of a lot of pimps who act as capitalists, offering an already established market, branding and property with which prostitutes may take up as a way to earn a means for survival like in any sphere of work and providing a level of security in employment. Although calls for legalisation or decriminalisation are generally made are often opposed by pimps and large benefactors (not as a rule though) who rely on the criminal elements to suit their economic interests. I find it similar to the issues surrounding drug use; again where the decriminalisation of such activities brings those pushed out of ~formal~ society back into the open where any abuse of such activities are more readily identifiable and attempts to escape such activities are supported to greater effect. Again, these moves have been historically opposed by the wealthy and criminal elements that control the market for drugs.

The same could be true for paedophilia, although I haven't given it much thought as to how this would work whilst we still take into account the potential for abuse of children. Perhaps likewise, it could decrease the arena for abuse if paedophiles are brought out into the open where their activities and relations with children can be monitored and the confrontation of their behaviour through therapy is more acceptable to those individuals due to a reduction in social-political stigma attached to it.

An Open Letter to Paedophiles - Sex Info Online (http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/sexinfo/article/pedophilia-seeking-help)


The pedophile's dilemma: If a pedophile goes to a psychologist or any other type of therapist for help, the therapist is required to notify the proper authorities about the pedophile and his (or her) sexual urges and activities. Many pedophiles are afraid to approach therapists and seek help because they fear being turned in and perhaps being arrested. ... and to add, probably the fear of confronting their own character as identified as criminal.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

As I've said before, I support the legalization of prostitution for a simple reason: The legal status of the profession would allow prostitutes to organize and agitate for working conditions and collective bargaining rights. It would also mean that the scumbags who thrive on the illegality of sex work, like pimps and human traffickers, would have a far more difficult time in intimidating and abusing sex workers.

As for abortion, I'm militantly pro-choice and would argue that the pro-choice side of the debate here in the States is not nearly as aggressive as it should be.

[Bala Perdida]

As I've said before, I support the legalization of prostitution for a simple reason: The legal status of the profession would allow prostitutes to organize and agitate for working conditions and collective bargaining rights. It would also mean that the scumbags who thrive on the illegality of sex work, like pimps and human traffickers, would have a far more difficult time in intimidating and abusing sex workers.

As for abortion, I'm militantly pro-choice and would argue that the pro-choice side of the debate here in the States is not nearly as aggressive as it should be.

Have you checked out the RCP affiliate Stop Patriarchy? Despite being associated with RCP, I think the group is rather admirable. Some of their views on porn and sex work in general seem bad, but otherwise I think you'd like them.

[Tim Cornelis]

As I've said before, I support the legalization of prostitution for a simple reason: The legal status of the profession would allow prostitutes to organize and agitate for working conditions and collective bargaining rights. It would also mean that the scumbags who thrive on the illegality of sex work, like pimps and human traffickers, would have a far more difficult time in intimidating and abusing sex workers..

How has this matched up with reality? If we look at the Netherlands for instance, it really hasn't. I'm not in favour of banning sex work, but I wonder when empirical reality will set in.

[Comrade Jacob]

You can't compare sex-work to abortion.

[ComradeAllende]

I would think that communists (in general) support abortion in all circumstances, as it is a symbol of women's agency over their reproductive health (and all the communists I know support agency for workers, oppressed peoples, etc). Prostitution is more complicated; in the context of a communist society, any form of wage/commodity labor is to be opposed, including prostitution (having a lot of sex or sex-for-favors is alright as far as I know). In a capitalist society, communists have to side with the whores; after all, prostitution is a dangerous industry rife with exploitation, and prostitutes are, as said above, workers.

[PhoenixAsh]

How has this matched up with reality? If we look at the Netherlands for instance, it really hasn't. I'm not in favour of banning sex work, but I wonder when empirical reality will set in.

The prostitution sector had their own "union" De Rode Draad from roughly 1983 to 2012. It did an awesome job under the conditions they had to work in. It was extremely active untill 2005 when they lost their government funding because of budget cuts and didn't have the funds to continue or expand their work. They finally went bankrupt in 2012.

After the legalisation their main activity was challenging unfair contracts, work safety, physical and mental hygiene and providing legal aid and workers comp. As well as opposing human trafficking and exploitation prevention.

With the decline of the union the position of prostitutes and call girls went down hill.

[OGG]

The polls not very good

[Hatshepsut]

I suspect this approach will still be in the favour of a lot of pimps who act as capitalists, offering an already established market, branding and property with which prostitutes may take up as a way to earn a means for survival...The same could be true for paedophilia, although I haven't given it much thought as to how this would work whilst we still take into account the potential for abuse of children. Perhaps likewise, it could decrease the arena for abuse if paedophiles are brought out into the open...

Philosophically I don’t see sex as an act of labor. Most sex in fact isn’t. Only the distortions and contradictions of a commodity society can turn sex into work. Which makes me leery of setting up new marketplaces for it—When we’re against markets in general, why are we desiring them in this particular trade? For realism I do prefer a venue, as it’s easier to monitor for signs of predation in a definite place than in the shadows. I think communists should extend recognition to sex work as a type of labor only until they can eliminate the need for this as a survival mode.

Pedophilia clearly must be stopped because it involves children too young to consent to use of their bodies by adults. Utah currently attempts control via mandatory sentences, often life without parole when the victim is under 14. Of course jailing is a primitive response to it; Incarceration Nation® hasn’t dented the phenomenon itself much, though it profits from the 15% of the Utah prison population now serving life on sex offenses. Fortunately, interrupting the relationship with referral to therapy is feasible provided the offender is nonviolent and willing to seek assistance. Punitive community attitude, and the sense that children are morally wronged in process, seems to prevent our taking that approach, which is favored by elements of the bourgeoisie as well.

On the other hand, pedophiles who won’t stay away from kids may have to be kept out of free society. Pedophilia has psychological consequences for the child; trauma can be severe even if no physical harm has occurred. The relative position of communism, a dialectical method, and ethics or morality is a tough problem I won’t try to solve here. Right/wrong is definitely an unscientific category dichotomy and morality can be code for legitimizing the preferences of the dominant. At the same time, psychologists have shown that internalized moral systems play a big part in self-regulation of human behavior—Without morals people are less reliable. Which makes it hard to dig values up and toss them out, a thing I can’t endorse on the deconstructionist principles usually offered for doing so. I would like to see research into the possibility of alternative conditioning in socialist envirnonments.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Why are the two grouped together?

I don't know why the OP grouped the two questions together, but they are linked. Both prostitution and abortion offend bourgeois "family values"; the assault on prostitutes and women who have abortions is necessary for the bourgeoisie to bolster the family, the means by which the bourgeoisie secure the reproduction of a class of dispossessed direct producers.

The communist position on both issues is a no-brainer. Not only are communists supposed to be tribunes of the people, able to take up the cause of any oppressed group, against police violence and against bourgeois sanctimoniousness, we are dealing with issues that directly concern the means by which the current mode of production is reproduced and the horrors it means for the workers. Communists fight for free abortion on demand, at any point in the pregnancy, free from all obstacles and state-enforced shaming. Likewise, while communists are not "for" prostitution any more than we are "for" plumbing or being a bank teller we fight the criminalisation of prostitution and all police violence against prostitutes. (Just as we would fight the police making plumbers unable to earn their living, locking them up, using them as forced labour for "philantropic" projects of the bourgeoisie and so on. Even if the state was able to spin a pretty story about how it's really helping the plumbers.)

That so many people here try to wriggle their way out of stating these basic positions just shows how beholden certain people and groups are to the radlib milieu.


Have you checked out the RCP affiliate Stop Patriarchy? Despite being associated with RCP, I think the group is rather admirable. Some of their views on porn and sex work in general seem bad, but otherwise I think you'd like them.

If you think yourself to the left of Anita Bryant, I would heartily advise you to stay away - far away - from the US RCP and their little front groups Stop Patriarchy, a group that had the position that after their "revolution" gay people would be locked up in concentration camps until 2000-something. (Of course I would bet most senior members still think that but saying so is bad for recruitment.) That these Victorian moralists would find common cause with anti-sex feminists is hardly surprising.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Are we talking about our context, or in a communist society? If the latter, all work will be conceived of in a completely different manner. There would not be prostitutes, like there would not be administrative assistants or bricklayers. As Rafiq put it in another thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2849219&postcount=8);

I always find it intriguing - and don't take this personally - when we say, in guise as communists, that "Under communism there will be no xyz or abc". I presume that this means "I envisage a communism where there would be no xyz or abc", but I think that it's dangerous to generalise our own, personal ideas as the represented position of an entire ideology.

As for the OP: I don't think the question is whether people are in favour of the acts (of prostitution or abortion) themselves, but that the real question is how much control do women actually have over their own bodies? If a woman wants to exchange sex for money, then as long as the act is consensual and safe (and perhaps conducted in a secure environment rather than on the streets to avoid negative social effects), then it is her choice, since her 'commodity' is her body, through which she produces the action of sex. Of course with prostitution this argument can be extended to male prostitutes, but I think the reason women and prostitution have been bound together as a question is through the demand for full bodily autonomy for women, which has not always (and is not always) the case.

[Bala Perdida]

If you think yourself to the left of Anita Bryant, I would heartily advise you to stay away - far away - from the US RCP and their little front groups Stop Patriarchy, a group that had the position that after their "revolution" gay people would be locked up in concentration camps until 2000-something. (Of course I would bet most senior members still think that but saying so is bad for recruitment.) That these Victorian moralists would find common cause with anti-sex feminists is hardly surprising.That explains them alienating sex workers. Stop Patriarchy is a new-ish group if I remember, but it is steaming with RCP members to a rather uncomfortable level. Nonetheless, as far as militant pro-choice in the US, that's the only movement I've seen land that on a recognizable scale. Sad really. Someone tried to recruit me for RCP not long ago, that never went anywhere. I think I still have the number of the contact they gave me for my area. I offered it to someone semi-jokingly once...

[DOOM]

Abortion is definitely a no-brainer. When it comes to prostitution however the communist position has to be more nuanced than the standard burg moralist dichotomy on prostitution. Communists shouldn't oppose prostitution becaue it's "unnatural" or "morally wrong". This effectively defends the bourgeois family, a tool for controling women and their sexuality.
On the other side communists shouldn't view prostitution as something positive and empowering (as it seems to be a consensus within liberal feminist discourse). Viewing work in general as something fulfilling and rather positive is a crude form of ideological reasoning, but prostitution particularly is not only tied to class opression but to sexual violence too, which is another dimension altogether. Widespread "clean" prostitution is a myth.

[Hatshepsut]

The communist position on both issues is a no-brainer...

Perhaps, but the history suggests that in the past, such issues didn't vanish quietly just because a revolution rolled around. Termination of pregnancy is no longer controversial now that populations are high, but the resource allocations connected with this (and other) health care services might be. Contraception and male vasectomy are both less expensive and safer than abortion; Communists may want to encourage preferences for the first two options to reduce the number of abortions that must be done.

Likewise, class support for sex workers isn't controversial either, today, although it has been in the past. Whenever something has been true in the past, vigilance against recrudescence is called for. Outright fascism is subdued in most countries, but we watch in case it returns. Greece's Chryse Auge hasn't gone out of business, indeed running a sizeable New York shop. Plus I suspect that sex work has a large coercive component: Consent doesn't mean financial pressure isn't there; we have people turning tricks to pay for college nowadays, or because the money's better than alternative lines of work.

[PhoenixAsh]

The position on abortion is a high priority demand originating from why we are having the debate in the first place.

Within the context of capitalism and patriarchy the social and political reality is that woman have an unequal position in all respects of society and are actively made subservient to social conditioning and force, often through legal means. This is ultimately why they have always been the subject of a debate over when they should be allowed to decide to do what with her own body or her own life.

It is essentially this reality that is being challenged by the demand for unrestricted, safe access to abortion and which makes all other demands and any moralist position either symptomatic, irrelevant, distracting or subservient to this central issue.

As such a nuanced position does not exist without obfuscating this and perpetuating this very reality for whatever reason.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The idea that any philosophical, ideological, or policy position should ever be a 'no-brainer' is ludicrous. Everything should always be thought through, critically analysed, and challenged. And, where we do find consensus or near-consensus support for a policy position, we should ensure everyone understands fully why this is the case.

Spouting the rubbish that 'this is a no-brainer position if you want to be a communist' is likely to have two effects:

a) reduce the general awareness of the intellectual validity of your position;
b) turn people away from your idea.

I would hope that we would all support a women's right to bodily autonomy, be that in the production of offspring or the use of her body for whatever purpose she wishes, but we should understand and emphasise very clearly that support for abortion and a sympathetic approach towards the issue of prostitution comes from this base, philosophical idea that a woman's body belongs to one person and one person only, and that this idea itself is necessary for social equality between men and women.

[Hatshepsut]

Within the context of capitalism and patriarchy the social and political reality is that woman have an unequal position in all respects of society...

Indeed. Although one must be careful not to identify subordination of women with capitalism, as capitalism inherits it from pre-existing social orders. Equality for women is probably consistent with capitalism; to wit Norway's recent requirement that 40% of corporate board members be women.

9652

Beating of nursing woman, detail in tax assessment scene
Beni Hasan tomb 15, of district governor Baqt, Egypt, late 11th Dynasty, ca. 2000 BC
by Percy Newberry, 1894

Captions: Left, by pair of men: dj.kw r tA "I have been put on the land"; Middle, above nursing woman: aHa r.T "Stand up, you!" Right, above standing woman and kneeling adolescent boy: sms mH.t(j) aAw "Seniority is full of ass"; above boy's head: janw "You'll be sorry!" (janw here seems to create a phonetic play with aAw "donkeys." As cuss word or term for stubbornness, "ass" is pretty old.)

[PhoenixAsh]

Yes true. But we are discussing the topic within the aspects of a capitalist epoch and the socio-economic realities that this entails. For more than 100 years we are still at this very level and while the position of women changes as capitalism further develops and changes this does not translate in equality being in the interests of capitalism rather their cheaper labour power is.



(also the dark figures in Egyptian 11th dynasty art usually depict "enemy" or "foreign forces" that have invaded Egypt or were rebelling. That scene most likely depicts the mistreatment of Egyptians by "foreigners" or other "enemies". It could very well be a propaganda piece. )

Edit: yes, just looked it up. Egypt was embroiled in a civil war during the period where Baqet III was an official and he changed sides in order to side with the winning team. Murals in tombs often serve to justify the life and deeds of the one buried there. Alternatively it could have been punishment for disobedience during the civil war.

Quite interestingly actually. Since the civil war ended the first intermediate period into the middle kingdom with the first Pharaoh of a united Egypt. It is interesting because for 20 years after the kingdom was reunited the country still needed to be cleared of rebels. And most notably those rebels had a large sympathizer base in the neutral Men'At Khufu region where Baqt III was nomach of the local sepat. Mentuhotep II who was pharaoh during the rebellion won and made a lot of changes in the way the country was administrated. Curbed the power of the nomarchs and changed the fundamentals of the government system of oversight. Just a shame that he couldn't actually decide which of the many Gods he was actually descended from since he changed that claim regularly.)

[DOOM]

Indeed. Although one must be careful not to identify subordination of women with capitalism, as capitalism inherits it from pre-existing social orders. Equality for women is probably consistent with capitalism; to wit Norway's recent requirement that 40% of corporate board members be women.
Capitalism didn't just inherit the patriarchy from previous societies, capitalism NEEDS the patriarchy in order to ensure its own reproduction. This means that bourgeois patriarchy is specific to the bourgeois society. I really like Scholz's texts on this subject.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Indeed. Although one must be careful not to identify subordination of women with capitalism, as capitalism inherits it from pre-existing social orders. Equality for women is probably consistent with capitalism; to wit Norway's recent requirement that 40% of corporate board members be women.


Well let's wait a second. Why 40%? Presumably because, if the requirement were 50%, who would do the domestic labour - housework; childcare; nursery and early years teaching; secretarial work?

Women may not always have been equal under previous social orders but the lack of equal social status of women under capitalism today can be traced directly to the industrial beginnings of capitalism. Women were (and are) needed to perform unpaid domestic labour, child rearing and so on, and women and children's exploitation was the basis of industrial revolutions. It has been estimated that the dangerous, low-paid exploitative jobs done by women and small children in Britain during the industrial revolution contributed as much as 25% of productivity. Clearly, there is something to the notion that capitalism needs women to hold a lower social status in order that it can socially force them to complete work - domestically and with children - that does not then have to be compensated.

[Hatshepsut]

...the dark figures in Egyptian 11th dynasty art usually depict "enemy" or "foreign forces" that have invaded Egypt or were rebelling. That scene most likely depicts the mistreatment of Egyptians by "foreigners" or other "enemies". It could very well be a propaganda piece....Egypt was embroiled in a civil war during the period where Baqet III was an official and he changed sides in order to side with the winning team.

A brief aside on this fascinating topic:

The contemporary military campaign series of Montuhotep II is quite relevant, although Plate 7 looks like other tax assessment scenery from the era outside war contexts. I have put the entire panel, which is from the south wall, on Flickr, below. The women in question appear in row 3 to the right of the large standing figure of Baqt. There, scribes record the arrival of donkeys and cattle; Newberry believed the women were being shooed off the path. (He didn’t comment on details of the political situation, not well known then; his chronology has also been moved up 500 years.) In tomb 15, warfare is commemorated on the east wall, which has six rows of wrestling maneuvers above three rows depicting a siege. Nubian archers do appear in the war scene; they are distinguished by their leather loincloths that contrast with the Egyptians’ white garments. These Nubians had been recruited into Egyptian armies. View on Plate 5, also below.

Since these are not color plates, black is often used for original red ochre on Egyptian males as well as the darker ochre/galena or carbon mix for Nubian skin.

Plate 5: https://flic.kr/p/xF7GZ1
Plate 7: https://flic.kr/p/xYoSNg

The complete volume, about 60mb, is in pdf at the Univ. of Chicago:

Newberry 1894. Beni Hasan II
http://oilib.uchicago.edu/books/newberry_beni_hasan_2_1894.pdf


Capitalism didn't just inherit the patriarchy from previous societies, capitalism NEEDS the patriarchy in order to ensure its own reproduction. This means that bourgeois patriarchy is specific to the bourgeois society. I really like Scholz's texts on this subject.

I'm tempted to question a need (dependence relation) as it implies capitalism would collapse in the event that women achieved social equality with men. Yet capitalism has gotten stronger with women’s progress, not weaker. England and Holland, capitalism’s earliest homes, were the two places in Europe where women enjoyed the best status, as bad as that was. There were no laws against their inheriting property or even mounting a throne as there were in France—although it is true that a rich Englishwoman had to remain unmarried and scandalized in order to assert such privileges, while poor women were basically screwed, joining the factory proletariat alongside children at an even lower level of subsistence than men, or being consigned to domestic servitude.

To take advantage of a pre-existing situation is, however, not the same thing as depending on it. Today women can run companies just as well as men; Norway has mandated that they be given 40% of all corporate directorships. While equality may not be in the interest of companies that exploit women, capitalism itself doesn’t much care, adapting freely to changes in the social status of groups as these have come. Often this takes the form of substituting a “kinder, gentler” exploitation for the previous arrangement. When slavery was abolished, the U.S. switched to sharecropping. When women got the vote and secured better positions in the workforce, the U.S. adopted the “second shift” system where women are burdened with child care in addition to outside employment.

Instead, I believe that capitalism depended mostly on enclosure of the commons and on colonialism (i.e. British & Dutch East India Companies), the two phenomena neo-Marxist economists cite in connection with its development. Struggle against patriarchy and racism are part of the broader workers’ struggle; in a classless society the genders and races are equal.

This would reduce to academic debate except for the fact that feminism is hardly united behind class struggle. Some feminists want to continue racism, neo-colonialism, and plutocracy, for instance, provided only that women are given a pro-rata cut. This camp has given us the moniker “glass ceiling,” where women can see into but not occupy the corner office. That’s certainly a truth, yet it minimizes the plight faced by 98% of workers of either sex who have no prospects for reaching such a station—I don’t see communism as wanting to perpetuate dominance by managerial corps. Other feminists are more radical with respect to class relations. They appear to recognize that liberation of the working class is a co-requisite for true women’s equality.

Notes:

The terms “enclosure of the commons” and “colonialism” had not been coined when Marx and Engels wrote. Allusions to them can be found as follows:

Enclosure of land
Prefaces to 1882 Russian and 1886 English editions of the Manifesto
Physiocrats, Capital, Vol. 2, Chap. 19
Ground-Rent, Capital, Vol. 3, Chaps. 37, 47

Colonialism
Exchange Rate with Asia, Capital, Vol. 3, Chap. 35

[Hatshepsut]

Well let's wait a second. Why 40%? Presumably because, if the requirement were 50%, who would do the domestic labour...? ...Women may not always have been equal under previous social orders but...were (and are) needed to perform unpaid domestic labour.

The 40% simply reflects that corporate boards are small and an 8-6 split is presumably acceptable to Norwegians. Anyone contending for a seat on a board of directors isn't worried about child care or housekeeping.

The subordination of women had also underpinned all the agricultural societies as their domestic labor freed men to spend more time in the fields. With capitalism, the men simply left the fields to enter shops. Under both systems, women worked alongside men whenever they didn't have small children, or often even if they did, since they could arrange for a subset of the women to care for the children of the rest.

I'm not disputing the ugliness of such economic relationships; it's just that I don't think them peculiar or necessary to capitalism.

[Patchd]

Philosophically I don’t see sex as an act of labor. Most sex in fact isn’t. Only the distortions and contradictions of a commodity society can turn sex into work. Which makes me leery of setting up new marketplaces for it—When we’re against markets in general, why are we desiring them in this particular trade? For realism I do prefer a venue, as it’s easier to monitor for signs of predation in a definite place than in the shadows. I think communists should extend recognition to sex work as a type of labor only until they can eliminate the need for this as a survival mode.

I think you've got it when you said the quote I highlighted in bold, but then I could make a similar claim in that philosophically I don't see pulling a lever, cleaning a floor, typing into a computer etc. as acts of labour in their own right either. I think I agree with your position, and as consistent communists we should argue for an abolition to sex work, not as most would consider what that statement would be, but along with arguing for an abolition to all work.


Pedophilia clearly must be stopped because it involves children too young to consent to use of their bodies by adults. Utah currently attempts control via mandatory sentences, often life without parole when the victim is under 14.

I don't know how it can be stopped to be honest. I'm definitely no expert, but I suspect a lot of sexual attraction is the result of conditioning and environment and presumably if we were to accept this premise, then paedophilia can only be stopped or decreased by removing the conditions which give rise to it. Still, all sexual and emotional abuse regardless of age should be opposed. I know someone who is in his 40s, identifies as a gay man, and had his first sexual experience at 11 in one of the public toilets in Manchester to an older man who he identifies as a paedophile and taking advantage of him [my friend], but also states that it was something he wanted to do at the time. If we are talking about consent, are we talking about being emotionally mature enough to consent also? Because we'd go into questions of what the qualifications for that would be, and I would assume it'd exclude a lot of adults also.

In addition, how would we monitor these feelings and acts? The age of consent is obviously populist political and with its rigidity doesn't take into account the different developmental speeds of individuals. Along with that, many age of consent laws applies to Hebephilia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebephilia) and Ephebophilia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia) as well as paedophilia.


I would like to see research into the possibility of alternative conditioning in socialist envirnonments.

Good points raised in your other paragraphs. I would like to see this too, except I don't think it will be possible until we actually reach this stage at which point it will really be trial and error.



I always find it intriguing - and don't take this personally - when we say, in guise as communists, that "Under communism there will be no xyz or abc". I presume that this means "I envisage a communism where there would be no xyz or abc", but I think that it's dangerous to generalise our own, personal ideas as the represented position of an entire ideology.

None taken, but thank you for the disclaimer! :) I think there are bases on which we can, or at least should, argue for as the bare minimum for all communists to accept to be necessary for us to consider a society as communist. We already have some which most self-ascribed communists will agree to; communism will be a classless society. We already hold positions that communism will [+/- not] have xyz; wage labour, the state etc. and I guess the role of profession is important to our understanding of humanity's evolving engagement with economics, dangerous or not, we should state positions on this too.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

[QUOTE=Patchd;2849565]
None taken, but thank you for the disclaimer! :)

Friendly debate is normally the most fruitful, especially between comrades!


I think there are bases on which we can, or at least should, argue for as the bare minimum for all communists to accept to be necessary for us to consider a society as communist. We already have some which most self-ascribed communists will agree to; communism will be a classless society. We already hold positions that communism will [+/- not] have xyz; wage labour, the state etc. and I guess the role of profession is important to our understanding of humanity's evolving engagement with economics, dangerous or not, we should state positions on this too.

The issue here is that the overwhelming majority of people are not communists, so it is logically a dead end to agree a platform amongst a tiny minority of us and present that as some sort of 'united platform'. We may have certain ideas that we believe are central to our ideology, but it's also important to remember that there are a great many people who either subconsciously share our political philosophy (a humane society free of exploitation, in which all people can live a life of dignity and happiness, however defined) or potentially could share it in the future, given the right circumstances.

I think that it's our duty to get the balance right between rigidly sticking to the broad tenets of our political philosophy (as outlined above) whilst, when we are not in a position to enact any sort of policies, avoid pronouncements of policies and conditions in an as yet non-existent future society.

This is one of the main reasons why I personally try to avoid 'isms'. They tend to denote a rigid set of beliefs that prove inflexible in a changing world. It is very noticeable that there are many on the far-left whose political solutions for 2015 are very much based on the conditions of societies that existed decades ago. I think we need greater flexibility than that and, if we can't do that, it says more about our failures than anybody else or 'the system'.

[Hatshepsut]

I don't know how it can be stopped to be honest...In addition, how would we monitor these feelings and acts?

I’ve heard anecdotes to the effect that social values in many rural areas of Eastern Europe and Russia didn’t change much after the revolutions and wars. Officials arrived to requisition stuff and then left. I agree speculations about the future character of society assume more omnipotence for communism than it may in fact possess.

This may come from misinterpretation of the word “class consciousness” to include an absolute platform on all social issues in the working class, in solidarity and like-mindedness. But the term only referred to historical awareness of class interest. Lukacs’ first question in History & Class Consciousness (1920)was in fact whether class conscious is homogeneous. Yet recent social issues from gay marriage to dietary ethics and animal rights simply didn’t come up during the socialist movements of the day.

[Calliope]

Abortion definitely needs to be legal, no one should ever have their bodily autonomy restricted. As for prostitution, the most effective way of protecting women would be to delegalize the buying of these services, rather than selling. Most of the women in prostitution are victims or abuse, sex trafficking, and/or rape, so it's not like there's any choice for them. Plus, no class of people should ever exist in order to be bought/used as objects. I don't understand how the idea is so normalized :confused:

[VCrakeV]

Came across this thread as I was wading through the threads I missed in the past few months. Some of the discussion has me thinking... As far as prostitution in a post-capitalist society, not only "should it exist?", but also "Can it exist?"

You see, in a Communist society, you work not for money or hours, but because there is an obligation to benefit the community. If prostitution is looked at as sex work, then a prostitute would have to feel obliged to benefit the community... By sexually satisfying people..? It's just bizarre. I'm not against it; I just don't see how it can be. Firstly, we'd have to get over the idea that using the body sexually is, morally, any different than using the body for work (as sex would be considered work under certain circumstances). Secondly, we'd have to somehow link prostitution to a benefit for the community. The only benefits I currently see are mood improvements for individuals (which I guess could translate to a mood lift for the community after many individuals).

But does anyone need it? Probably not, but that depends on your idea of "need"... I suppose one could say everyone needs intimacy (if even on an artificial level), and not everyone is capable of forming an intimate relationship. I suppose, aside from exceptional lust, this is why people (mainly men) participate in it today.

I guess it all boils down to "is it any different than other work, pleasant or unpleasant?" and "Is there a need or benefit?"... What do you think?

[VCrakeV]

Came across this thread as I was wading through the threads I missed in the past few months. Some of the discussion has me thinking... As far as prostitution in a post-capitalist society, not only "should it exist?", but also "Can it exist?"

You see, in a Communist society, you work not for money or hours, but because there is an obligation to benefit the community. If prostitution is looked at as sex work, then a prostitute would have to feel obliged to benefit the community... By sexually satisfying people..? It's just bizarre. I'm not against it; I just don't see how it can be. Firstly, we'd have to get over the idea that using the body sexually is, morally, any different than using the body for work (as sex would be considered work under certain circumstances). Secondly, we'd have to somehow link prostitution to a benefit for the community. The only benefits I currently see are mood improvements for individuals (which I guess could translate to a mood lift for the community after many individuals).

But does anyone need it? Probably not, but that depends on your idea of "need"... I suppose one could say everyone needs intimacy (if even on an artificial level), and not everyone is capable of forming an intimate relationship. I suppose, aside from exceptional lust, this is why people (mainly men) participate in it today.

I guess it all boils down to "is it any different than other work, pleasant or unpleasant?" and "Is there a need or benefit?"... What do you think?

[Guardia Rossa]

You see, in a Communist society, you work not for money or hours, but because there is an obligation to benefit the community.

You see, in a Communist society, you work not for money or hours, but because you like working. If you like having sex, go and have sex. If you like making bricks, go and make bricks. I like building things (Any kind of things, from pen-crossbows to walls and explosives) and I like reading history books and teaching people history. So in communism I would build things and read history books and teach history. Not because of some autocratic "law" that we must work for the society, or any bullshit of the kind, but because I enjoy working.

[Zoop]

The answers you've provided don't really make much sense. But anyway:

Regarding abortion: I'm neither in favour of it, nor against it. I'm in favour of women making their own decision about a completely personal matter. It really is none of my business.

Prostitution: Lots of individuals, mainly women, are coerced into sex work. If they aren't directly coerced, then they are usually forced to engage in it due to their economic condition. It is often dangerous for the prostitute, for obvious reasons.

Are there people who really do like to it? I'm sure there are, but you're going to find that these people, this minority, enjoy it when their safety is guaranteed.

I often find that the people who "purchase" the things sex workers offer, whatever that may be, are the scummiest people alive, and this ranges from visiting a prostitute to visiting a strip club.

[Redistribute the Rep]

Came across this thread as I was wading through the threads I missed in the past few months. Some of the discussion has me thinking... As far as prostitution in a post-capitalist society, not only "should it exist?", but also "Can it exist?"

You see, in a Communist society, you work not for money or hours, but because there is an obligation to benefit the community. If prostitution is looked at as sex work, then a prostitute would have to feel obliged to benefit the community... By sexually satisfying people..? It's just bizarre. I'm not against it; I just don't see how it can be. Firstly, we'd have to get over the idea that using the body sexually is, morally, any different than using the body for work (as sex would be considered work under certain circumstances). Secondly, we'd have to somehow link prostitution to a benefit for the community. The only benefits I currently see are mood improvements for individuals (which I guess could translate to a mood lift for the community after many individuals).

But does anyone need it? Probably not, but that depends on your idea of "need"... I suppose one could say everyone needs intimacy (if even on an artificial level), and not everyone is capable of forming an intimate relationship. I suppose, aside from exceptional lust, this is why people (mainly men) participate in it today.

I guess it all boils down to "is it any different than other work, pleasant or unpleasant?" and "Is there a need or benefit?"... What do you think?

Well there will always be promiscuous people but I can't imagine it being desirable to have that be obligatory. Peoples sexualities are not property to be collectivized

Just think about sex as any other social activity, like, say, playing basketball with somebody. If nobody wants to play with you then you'll have to play alone or find something else to do. People aren't obligated to play basketball if they don't want to, you can't force them. Don't play basketball with an unconscious person. And don't just throw the ball at them before you've asked.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Why are the two grouped together?

Why does it matter?

I am for open access to abortions and sex work. Period.

[VCrakeV]

Well there will always be promiscuous people but I can't imagine it being desirable to have that be obligatory. Peoples sexualities are not property to be collectivized

Just think about sex as any other social activity, like, say, playing basketball with somebody. If nobody wants to play with you then you'll have to play alone or find something else to do. People aren't obligated to play basketball if they don't want to, you can't force them. Don't play basketball with an unconscious person. And don't just throw the ball at them before you've asked.

Basketball and sex... Playing sex by yourself... :laugh:

But yeah, I get what you're saying. I'm just having trouble stirring up discussion on this. And on that note, not to offend, but you're comparing apples and oranges. I mean, it's easy to find people who'd like to play sports. I play video games, and my standards are relatively low. As long as someone isn't a dick, I'll probably play with them. But sexual activities are different. Without an incentive like money, a person will only have sex for personal satisfaction, pleasing a really close person (girlfriend, husband, etc.), and, unfortunately, out of pity.

Husband reminds of this - marriage, and similar relationships (boyfriend-girlfriend for ex) behave much like prostitution. Much like a prostitute, many wives and girlfriends offer their special other sex in exchange for whatever she is seeking in the relationship other than love. Relationships are important to happiness, as far as I know. There is actually love and sex violence.

But, I digress. We can't objectify a person, or his/her body. However, we can objectify the stuff they do. If a woman enjoys sex, than your basketball example is quite applicable. She'll just play with those she wants to play with. But, let's go back to society today... What about those girls/woman who enjoy the thrill of new people, the adventure and discovery of fetishism, and simply pleasing people? I know that all sounds like lollipops and gumdrops to anyone interested in a prostitute, but just look at the Internet. There are many sex workers (prostitutes and fetish players) who have clear interest, believe it or not. Whether it's a certain fetish, discovery/adventure, or yes, even empowerment.

I suppose many communists would look at the prostitutes I just described as simply adventurous women. Whatever. Tomayto tamahto

[VCrakeV]

You see, in a Communist society, you work not for money or hours, but because you like working. If you like having sex, go and have sex. If you like making bricks, go and make bricks. I like building things (Any kind of things, from pen-crossbows to walls and explosives) and I like reading history books and teaching people history. So in communism I would build things and read history books and teach history. Not because of some autocratic "law" that we must work for the society, or any bullshit of the kind, but because I enjoy working.

Would you consider sex as work for the sake of this post?
What if Bob doesn't like work? Does he work out of obligation, or not at all?
This goes hand in hand with my first question, but what if Jen doesn't like any traditional work, but enjoys sex? How does she compare to Bob?