Prostitution. I'm serious. [Archive]

ahhh_money_is_comfort

27th November 2004, 20:30

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 08:05 PM
Don't many people effectively do this in our current society? I certainly know the last time I went looking for "free sex", there was little issue in obtaining it...

Prostitution after all is essentially the detachment of emotion from fornication, with capital benefits being passed from those who are unable to control their own instinct to procreate to those who abuse it. Under communism, I can't see how it would fit.

But then, my "communism" would be all about free love anyway.
There are two types of prostituts that I can think of:

1) Nypmhos who want sex.

2) Non nymphos who need money.

I can see no more #2. Are there enough nymphos able to handle all the guys/gals who need sex?

How about the potential for abuse? All these people who just gotta have it? Is it possible the people in #1 would start 'accumulating wealth'.

DaCuBaN

27th November 2004, 20:41

I guess it depends; some communities may decide that prostitution is all good, and that they provide a valuable service to those who are unable to control their procreative urges, hence they will be supported by aforementioned community.

It's up to those people concerned though: After all, socialism and communism are about self-determination as much as they are about economic centralisation and freedom from wage slavery respectively.

"Free sex" is consensual. Prostitution is the subjugation of women (or men) by money.

For the sake of discusison, presume that all prostitution in this regard is consentual. Believe it or not, there are people in this world who can think of nothing better than sexual intercourse/gratification for a living - irregardless of the partners concerned.

ahhh_money_is_comfort

27th November 2004, 20:48

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 08:41 PM
I guess it depends; some communities may decide that prostitution is all good, and that they provide a valuable service to those who are unable to control their procreative urges, hence they will be supported by aforementioned community.

It's up to those people concerned though: After all, socialism and communism are about self-determination as much as they are about economic centralisation and freedom from wage slavery respectively.

"Free sex" is consensual. Prostitution is the subjugation of women (or men) by money.

For the sake of discusison, presume that all prostitution in this regard is consentual. Believe it or not, there are people in this world who can think of nothing better than sexual intercourse/gratification for a living - irregardless of the partners concerned.
How about the potential for abuse?

DaCuBaN

27th November 2004, 20:54

How about the potential for abuse? All these people who just gotta have it? Is it possible the people in #1 would start 'accumulating wealth'.

I'm going to throw my disclaimer in here: My opinion is not representative of any other on this site, nor of any who share even the slightest of corrolations in ideology.

Under socialism, the "grab-motive" is left intact - as such, it is entirely possible that persons deemed to be providing useful services will indeed accumulate wealth, perhaps even in an extravagent manner. Under communism, most think that the market economy will cease to exist, and that we will adopt a "gift" system - in other words, it makes it impossible to accumulate wealth.

On a side note, this is an issue I have with Marixst-Leninism: The revolution breaks down into the dictatorship of the proletariat (socialism), which leads to enlightenment (by magical means) resulting in communism (utopia).

I understand what Anarchists are getting it... but Leninists? :huh:

Anyway, to answer your question: Under socialism, the accumulation of wealth is indeed possible. Under communism, it is not.

ahhh_money_is_comfort

27th November 2004, 21:03

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 08:54 PM

How about the potential for abuse? All these people who just gotta have it? Is it possible the people in #1 would start 'accumulating wealth'.

I'm going to throw my disclaimer in here: My opinion is not representative of any other on this site, nor of any who share even the slightest of corrolations in ideology.

Under socialism, the "grab-motive" is left intact - as such, it is entirely possible that persons deemed to be providing useful services will indeed accumulate wealth, perhaps even in an extravagent manner. Under communism, most think that the market economy will cease to exist, and that we will adopt a "gift" system - in other words, it makes it impossible to accumulate wealth.

On a side note, this is an issue I have with Marixst-Leninism: The revolution breaks down into the dictatorship of the proletariat (socialism), which leads to enlightenment (by magical means) resulting in communism (utopia).

I understand what Anarchists are getting it... but Leninists? :huh:

Anyway, to answer your question: Under socialism, the accumulation of wealth is indeed possible. Under communism, it is not.
Supply and demand. The hallmark of capitalism. You know the urges will never go away. If one side needs it really bad, the other side 'will offer it up' and a benefit to themselves, or in other words accumulate wealth. No matter what system, the urges do not go away.

My point? There are other urges. I think you know what I'm hinting at.

Raisa

27th November 2004, 22:12

Most service jobs will probably not exist by the higher stages of socialism because with more equality, less people are forced into places in life where they'd have to do them.
This means maybe you can bag your own damn food, shine your own shoes, and maybe less women will feel condemned to marry you for your wealth in order to survive, or prostitute themselves because there will be less of a reason for alot of things that cause the need for prostitution in the higher stages of socialism.

Vinny Rafarino

28th November 2004, 00:53

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 07:58 PM
I'm serious about this question. How would Prostituion work?

Would there be prostitution in a communist system?

Would prostituts just stand on a corner and 'give it away' for free?
Prostitution means (the way you are referring to it) that an individual performs sexual favours for money or other "valuable" items.

Since money and monetary value will no longer exist in a communist society, it is safe to say that "prostitution" will no longer be sociologically relevant.

Prostitution is exploitative and misogynistic, no matter what the economic system present.

If a you are a man-whore wouldn't it be hard to be "misogynistic"? Prostitution is as "exploitative" to us as any other job that exploits out labour; no more no less.

. It will be abolished in communism. By communism, I mean the final stage. For communism to exist, prostitution and other such forms of subjugation will all have to be abolished.

There would be no need to "abolish" something that will become arcahic on its own.

Funny, considering the prices I had to pay in Tokyo for a hooker, I think it was I that was "subjugated". :lol:

EDIT: "Free sex" is consensual. Prostitution is the subjugation of women (or men) by money.

Just like any other "job" under capitalism.

Dr. Rosenpenis

28th November 2004, 03:28

If a you are a man-whore wouldn't it be hard to be "misogynistic"?

If you are a female prostitute it is hard to be misogynistic.
Any prostitute is sexually subjugated.

Prostitution is as "exploitative" to us as any other job that exploits out labour; no more no less.

But unlike other occupations, prostitution necessarily offers a bourgeois commodity. It inherently involves subjugation. Whereas other jobs are potentially consensual contributions to society rather than an act of forcefully subduing ones body sexually.

There would be no need to "abolish" something that will become arcahic on its own.

When communism comes into existence, yes, prostitution will indeed be archaic. But it will be the agenda of socialism to abolish it.

DaCuBaN

28th November 2004, 03:31

[prostitution] inherently involves subjugation.

I know of at least one dominatrix in my local area who would disagree... :D

The New State

28th November 2004, 05:54

Prostitution should be legal - completely legal. The industry would leave the hands of exploitative criminals(pimps, mafia, etc.), and probably significantly cleaned up...

Dr. Rosenpenis

28th November 2004, 06:02

Until capitalism is abolished, I agree that the best thing to do for the good of these poor women is to somehow offer protection, etc. for prostitutes. Because until these ladies have an alternative to selling themselves, prostitution will always exist.

But the capies aren't gonna do anything that fails to serve their class interest, now are they?

The New State

28th November 2004, 06:24

I sell my labor daily. I sell it at a local restaurant. How is this different than selling my sexual labor?

edit:

How would Prostitution work under Communism(socialism for those who will build their argument on semantics)

rationing. whore rationing. Yes, believe it.

Dr. Rosenpenis

28th November 2004, 07:18

I sell my labor daily. I sell it at a local restaurant. How is this different than selling my sexual labor?

You are indeed being exploited.
Sexually, however, nobody is using their power of wealth to subjugate your very being.

revolutionindia

28th November 2004, 10:21

All I know
Postitution needs to be abolished in the present world

It doesn't matter whether its a capitalistic or commusnitic world

That reminds of something
It goes like this

"If you are neither a mother,sister or a daughter, then you can be a prostitute imply because if you are any of the above then you are
taken care of by the virtue of the relationship that you have and don't need to sell your body for money"

But I am sure it doesnt work like this in today's world

Today kids pimp their mothers in bylanes
Fathers sell their daughters to the highest bidders

However you must understand that I come from a third world country
where prostitution is almost a form of slavery where women are sold and
brought and traded

Danton

28th November 2004, 12:37

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 28 2004, 12:53 AM
Funny, considering the prices I had to pay in Tokyo for a hooker, I think it was I that was "subjugated". :lol:

Yeah, I'd feel like a right **** too if I had to pay for it.

The whores I see are never Juliet Roberts - they are real dirty munters, they lower the tone of my neighbourhood... Who gives a fuck whether they live or die? Not me or Jesus..

Vinny Rafarino

28th November 2004, 17:04

If you are a female prostitute it is hard to be misogynistic.
Any prostitute is sexually subjugated.

"Subjugate" must be the word of the week.

In any case, I disagree.

But unlike other occupations, prostitution necessarily offers a bourgeois commodity. It inherently involves subjugation. Whereas other jobs are potentially consensual contributions to society rather than an act of forcefully subduing ones body sexually.

No more, no less.

When communism comes into existence, yes, prostitution will indeed be archaic. But it will be the agenda of socialism to abolish it.

Perhaps according to your idea of socialism.

Yeah, I'd feel like a right **** too if I had to pay for it.

The whores I see are never Juliet Roberts - they are real dirty munters, they lower the tone of my neighbourhood... Who gives a fuck whether they live or die? Not me or Jesus..

It appears that paying for it may be exactly what you need.

SonofRage

28th November 2004, 17:05

With the abolishment of the wage system and private property, the material basis for prostitution to exist would no longer be there. We wouldn't sell our labor anymore and production would be for human need.

Of course my conception of socialism seems to be a lot different than the Leninists on the board. It seems ridiculous to me that we would keep something like the wage system after the revolution (although you guys want to form a new State as well which baffles me). That is not socialism in my view, it is State (Monopoly) Capitalism.

Professor Moneybags

28th November 2004, 19:15

Prostitution is exploitative and misogynistic, no matter what the economic system present. It will be abolished in communism.

Whatever happened to freedom ? What if the women wanted to do it ? Are they exploiting themselves ? Are they being misogynists ?

EDIT: "Free sex" is consensual. Prostitution is the subjugation of women (or men) by money.

If I pay someone to clean my car, am I "subjucating" him ? You idiot.

Professor Moneybags

28th November 2004, 19:19

Prostitution means (the way you are referring to it) that an individual performs sexual favours for money or other "valuable" items.

Since money and monetary value will no longer exist in a communist society, it is safe to say that "prostitution" will no longer be sociologically relevant.

If no money/trade exists, the only alternative is force. I think the issue of rape is "sociologically relevant", at least as far as the victim is concerned.

Fidelbrand

28th November 2004, 19:26

If I pay someone to clean my car, am I "subjucating" him ? You idiot.

Bad counter example.
He is talking about gender subjucation, mail order smartass. :D

Vinny Rafarino

28th November 2004, 19:37

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 28 2004, 07:19 PM

If no money/trade exists, the only alternative is force.

Says you. Considering the intellectual content of your posts since you became a member, forgive me if I dismiss this and the majority of your future posts as the nonsensical drivel that they are.

I think the issue of rape is "sociologically relevant", at least as far as the victim is concerned.

When exactly did I ever mention rape? Do try and stay with us son.

Bad Grrrl Agro

28th November 2004, 19:40

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 08:05 PM
Don't many people effectively do this in our current society? I certainly know the last time I went looking for "free sex", there was little issue in obtaining it...

Prostitution after all is essentially the detachment of emotion from fornication, with capital benefits being passed from those who are unable to control their own instinct to procreate to those who abuse it. Under communism, I can't see how it would fit.

But then, my "communism" would be all about free love anyway.
my democratic socialism would encourage something similar but it would also encouage protection

Professor Moneybags

29th November 2004, 21:18

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 07:26 PM
Bad counter example.
He is talking about gender subjucation, mail order smartass. :D
He is talking about subjucation to money. Learn to read :

Prostitution is the subjugation of women (or men) by money.

Professor Moneybags

29th November 2004, 21:24

Says you.

Is there an alternative ? Do enlighten me. If human interaction is not voluntary, then what is it ?

<snip the personal attacks/other crap>

Dr. Rosenpenis

29th November 2004, 21:44

Prostitution is indeed the subjugation of women (or men) by money, but gender oppression is certainly what sets it apart from other capitalistic practices. My quote may have been misleading. My mistake,

Vinny Rafarino

29th November 2004, 22:35

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 09:44 PM
Prostitution is indeed the subjugation of women (or men) by money, but gender oppression is certainly what sets it apart from other capitalistic practices. My quote may have been misleading. My mistake,
Good grief, what a bunch of malarky.

Unless you happen to be part of the ruling elite, simply LIVING in a capitalistic society is being "subjugated by money".

These crusades of yours are getting very old indeed. I suggest you take a spa treatment.

synthesis

29th November 2004, 23:27

Wait, so you're saying that all subjugation is the same (i.e. equally wrong) in capitalist society?

Vinny Rafarino

29th November 2004, 23:35

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 11:27 PM
Wait, so you're saying that all subjugation is the same (i.e. equally wrong) in capitalist society?
No.

What I said was this:

Unless you happen to be part of the ruling elite, simply LIVING in a capitalistic society is being "subjugated by money".

DaCuBaN

29th November 2004, 23:41

Wait, so you're saying that all subjugation is the same (i.e. equally wrong) in capitalist society?

Such is an argument for reform - a marxist should accept that the root of such problems is capitalism itself, and so "grading" subjugation is a waste of effort.

Dr. Rosenpenis

30th November 2004, 01:48

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 29 2004, 05:35 PM
Unless you happen to be part of the ruling elite, simply LIVING in a capitalistic society is being "subjugated by money".
That's why I specified further.
Generally speaking, prostitution is an advancement of male chauvinism.

synthesis

30th November 2004, 01:59

Originally posted by Comrade RAF+Nov 29 2004, 04:35 PM--> (Comrade RAF @ Nov 29 2004, 04:35 PM)
[email protected] 29 2004, 11:27 PM
Wait, so you're saying that all subjugation is the same (i.e. equally wrong) in capitalist society?
No.

What I said was this:

Unless you happen to be part of the ruling elite, simply LIVING in a capitalistic society is being "subjugated by money". [/b]
But doesn't that essentially amount to equalizing all capitalist subjugation when used in response to:

gender oppression is certainly what sets [prostitution] apart from other capitalistic practices

?

Correct me if I'm wrong.

ahhh_money_is_comfort

30th November 2004, 02:08

Folks. I think your missing my fundamental question. Supply and demand. It is a hallmark of capitalism.

As long as there are urges. There is a demand. Hookers will follow.

Unless there are enough hookers willing to satisify all the urges. Then there is enough demand to make a scarescity. So when the world become communist. Unless urges can be nullified, there will always be capitalism somewhere.

Then there are other urges.

LSD

30th November 2004, 02:40

Unless there are enough hookers willing to satisify all the urges. Then there is enough demand to make a scarescity. So when the world become communist. Unless urges can be nullified, there will always be capitalism somewhere.

What the hell are you talking about?

If there is nothing to trade, and I don't have anything you don't, how can capitalism exist?

Let's say you're really horny and can't get laid? So what?

There can't be hookers it there's nothing to pay them with!!!

Folks. I think your missing my fundamental question. Supply and demand. It is a hallmark of capitalism.

Well since we're discussing communist society who gives a damn what's a "hallmark of capitalism"?

The Grapes of Wrath

30th November 2004, 17:48

I agree with LSD. We are dealing with a communist society. Unless I'm too wasted right now, I hold the idea that communism has different values and visions on how it percieves "payment" and therefore money.

If money is non-existent, and the necessities and even most novelties of life are available free of charge, "paid" for by the services and goods you have given to society, then what is the point of becoming a prostitute? And how would that even be possible?

If you mean free sex, and nymphomaniacs, then why would they need to be "selling" themselves on a corner, when they could just pick up anyone and have meaningless sex with them, which is the point. If you are a nympho, wouldn't having sex be the "payment" for your efforts? So where does "money" come into this?

Fundamentally, there would be no demand for prostitutes, just sex partners. I would hope that mankind by the time it reaches this said communism would have progressed in thought and mind to no longer think in such vain terms. A change of mind is needed, and essential, so, a lot of us are thinking of this in terms of capitalism, which is incorrect. You can't assume anything or think of things in the future in terms of today, especially of a communist society that many of us hope to attain.

TGOW

ahhh_money_is_comfort

1st December 2004, 01:47

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 30 2004, 02:40 AM

Unless there are enough hookers willing to satisify all the urges. Then there is enough demand to make a scarescity. So when the world become communist. Unless urges can be nullified, there will always be capitalism somewhere.

What the hell are you talking about?

If there is nothing to trade, and I don't have anything you don't, how can capitalism exist?

Let's say you're really horny and can't get laid? So what?

There can't be hookers it there's nothing to pay them with!!!

Folks. I think your missing my fundamental question. Supply and demand. It is a hallmark of capitalism.

Well since we're discussing communist society who gives a damn what's a "hallmark of capitalism"?
Oh there is always something to trade.

How about things that are scarce?

If hookers want scarce things and someone really needs to get laid, but knows the scarce item can get him laid, there will be a trade.

From what a gather in the first page of these posts, even in a communist system, there are scarce things.

ahhh_money_is_comfort

1st December 2004, 01:50

Originally posted by The Grapes of [email protected] 30 2004, 05:48 PM
I agree with LSD. We are dealing with a communist society. Unless I'm too wasted right now, I hold the idea that communism has different values and visions on how it percieves "payment" and therefore money.

If money is non-existent, and the necessities and even most novelties of life are available free of charge, "paid" for by the services and goods you have given to society, then what is the point of becoming a prostitute? And how would that even be possible?

If you mean free sex, and nymphomaniacs, then why would they need to be "selling" themselves on a corner, when they could just pick up anyone and have meaningless sex with them, which is the point. If you are a nympho, wouldn't having sex be the "payment" for your efforts? So where does "money" come into this?

Fundamentally, there would be no demand for prostitutes, just sex partners. I would hope that mankind by the time it reaches this said communism would have progressed in thought and mind to no longer think in such vain terms. A change of mind is needed, and essential, so, a lot of us are thinking of this in terms of capitalism, which is incorrect. You can't assume anything or think of things in the future in terms of today, especially of a communist society that many of us hope to attain.

TGOW
What is stopping people right now from just 'giving' away sex?

How about for men?

Whould that be great? Sure I'd loooooove to live in a communist society. I could have all the sex I want.

Or

For men is sex going to be scarce?

synthesis

1st December 2004, 02:37

What is stopping people right now from just 'giving' away sex?

Because there are some people in this world who don't have any other means of making money, thus they cannot afford to simply 'give it away' to 10-15 people a night.

There are also the obvious societal taboos involved which will likely have been abandoned post-revolution.

For men is sex going to be scarce?

You expect us to be able to answer something like that?

My best guess is that it will be as available as your abilities could secure.

Anyways, I think most of us understand that a communist society won't exist for quite some time. Do you honestly think, in the culture that we live in, that by then we won't have invented some technological solution to the human desire for carnal experiences?

ahhh_money_is_comfort

1st December 2004, 02:45

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 02:37 AM

What is stopping people right now from just 'giving' away sex?

Because there are some people in this world who don't have any other means of making money, thus they cannot afford to simply 'give it away' to 10-15 people a night.

There are also the obvious societal taboos involved which will likely have been abandoned post-revolution.

For men is sex going to be scarce?

You expect us to be able to answer something like that?

My best guess is that it will be as available as your abilities could secure.

Anyways, I think most of us understand that a communist society won't exist for quite some time. Do you honestly think, in the culture that we live in, that by then we won't have invented some technological solution to the human desire for carnal experiences?
You kind of admint that communist is pie in the sky goal, then you come right back and say that it is dependant on another pie is the sky technology.

Acquire sex as my abilities can secure compared to what I really want in quantity and quality? Well my abilities seem to be pretty low, the same for millions of other people.

Does that mean it is going to be pretty scarce? Especially really desirable sex?

Answers? Commies seem to have an answer to EVERYTHING. I was just hopefull that my questions could be also answered.

leftist resistance

1st December 2004, 02:52

I think it should be abolished.Brings about social corruption.

synthesis

1st December 2004, 03:50

You kind of admint that communist is pie in the sky goal, then you come right back and say that it is dependant on another pie is the sky technology.

Where the hell are you getting this from?

First off, nothing I said would suggest that a global communist society is a pipe dream. I simply acknowledge that it may be awhile. I'd give the capitalist mode of production another 125 years at most.

Secondly, a global communist society "dependant" on completely fulfilling all sexual desires? Nonsense.

Finally, I think you underestimate the progress of immersive technology.

The reason I answered your question the way I did was because I think that trying to tell people what communist society will "be like" is naive at best and deceptive at worst. It's all fairly baseless speculation at this point, while the world is submerged under glaciers of reaction.

Does that mean it is going to be pretty scarce? Especially really desirable sex?

We aren't promising a utopia, dude. All we can guarantee is the abolition of capitalism.

LSD

1st December 2004, 04:50

Oh there is always something to trade.

How about things that are scarce?

If hookers want scarce things and someone really needs to get laid, but knows the scarce item can get him laid, there will be a trade.

From what a gather in the first page of these posts, even in a communist system, there are scarce things.

Yes, in a society in which material value has largely been socially removed, women are going to do you for...what..."scarce things"?

Fuck me and I'll give you my Mickey Mantel rookie card?

Sorry, but "hooking" as a profession just won't survive without value exchange.

"Scarcity" just isn't enough.

You kind of admint that communist is pie in the sky goal, then you come right back and say that it is dependant on another pie is the sky technology.

Are you high?!?

Realizing communist society is dependent on..... cheap hookers?!?!

WHAT?!?

Does that mean it is going to be pretty scarce? Especially really desirable sex?

I have no idea.

Believe me, getting you laid after the revolution is hardly the primary concern of the leftist movement.

I think liberating the oppressed comes first.

ahhh_money_is_comfort

1st December 2004, 05:17

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 1 2004, 04:50 AM

Oh there is always something to trade.

How about things that are scarce?

If hookers want scarce things and someone really needs to get laid, but knows the scarce item can get him laid, there will be a trade.

From what a gather in the first page of these posts, even in a communist system, there are scarce things.

Yes, in a society in which material value has largely been socially removed, women are going to do you for...what..."scarce things"?

Fuck me and I'll give you my Mickey Mantel rookie card?

Sorry, but "hooking" as a profession just won't survive without value exchange.

"Scarcity" just isn't enough.

You kind of admint that communist is pie in the sky goal, then you come right back and say that it is dependant on another pie is the sky technology.

Are you high?!?

Realizing communist society is dependent on..... cheap hookers?!?!

WHAT?!?

Does that mean it is going to be pretty scarce? Especially really desirable sex?

I have no idea.

Believe me, getting you laid after the revolution is hardly the primary concern of the leftist movement.

I think liberating the oppressed comes first.
Believe me, getting laid is not the whole point of this post.

The point is urges. Human desire and urges not just for sex, but also for gratification on all levels you can imagine.

You are right that hooking will not survive without value exchange. After all 'the worlds oldest profession' had to start with value exchange. The value exchange started with urges for gratification.

The point?

Communism is doomed unless the urges are controlled. Not just reproductive urges, but all sorts of urges. Any urge you can imagine good or bad. Productive or not. They are going to be there.

If communism is doomed. Then isn't the natural path will be just an endless series of revolutions that just go bad and don't achive communism? Instead a series of tyranical rullers that hi-jack the communist revolution and instead produce wokers paradise? Produce a nightmare of secret graves and mass executions?

synthesis

1st December 2004, 05:27

Wait a second. The only "natural" urges people have are for the necessities of survival - food, water, clothing, shelter, reproduction. Everything else is a product of the society we live in. I would otherwise challenge you to provide evidence of a "greed gene" :D

Communism - real communism - as in, decentralized post-advanced capitalist classlessness - will do a far better job providing these basic needs than capitalism is currently doing for a great majority of the world - with the possible exception of sex. But sex is the exception, the only exception, because everything else is a result of manufactured desires resulting from a consumer-oriented economy.

I admire your gentle and analogical touch to your debating style, but you're going about this the wrong way. You've chosen a lot of very poor examples throughout your brief tenure here, I think you can do a lot better.

ahhh_money_is_comfort

1st December 2004, 06:06

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 05:27 AM
Wait a second. The only "natural" urges people have are for the necessities of survival - food, water, clothing, shelter, reproduction. Everything else is a product of the society we live in. I would otherwise challenge you to provide evidence of a "greed gene" :D

Communism - real communism - as in, decentralized post-advanced capitalist classlessness - will do a far better job providing these basic needs than capitalism is currently doing for a great majority of the world - with the possible exception of sex. But sex is the exception, the only exception, because everything else is a result of manufactured desires resulting from a consumer-oriented economy.

I admire your gentle and analogical touch to your debating style, but you're going about this the wrong way. You've chosen a lot of very poor examples throughout your brief tenure here, I think you can do a lot better.
I'm not talking about greed.

I'm talking about desire and urges. As long as there are these urges. Such as sex, there will be value exchange. That is how the worlds oldest profession was born. The urges where there first, the value exchange came about naturally.

Any urges and wants. As long as they are there, somone (maybe a hooker) is going to trade to satisfy those urges. Of course this is all conjecture.

As a side note. About human behavior. Humans are mammals. They have fundamental mamal behavior common to ALL mamals. One of which is social order and dominace. All mamals do it, whales, rats, dogs, and primates. That is not a classless encouraging behavior. That is not conjecture and it is in our genes.

LSD

1st December 2004, 06:15

I'm not talking about greed.

I'm talking about desire and urges. As long as there are these urges. Such as sex, there will be value exchange. That is how the worlds oldest profession was born. The urges where there first, the value exchange came about naturally.

As Dyermaker said, the only true "urges" are biological, and, with the exception of sex, communist society will entirely satisfy them.

There will be no need for "value exchange". There will be no need for hookers.

I'm not talking about greed.

Yes you are.

The "urges" you speak of, the ones that aren't biological, what are they if not "greed"?

Wanting things...

Materialism is as much a societal creation as anything else, it is not biological. Comparing material greed to sex is ludicrous.

As a side note. About human behavior. Humans are mammals. They have fundamental mamal behavior common to ALL mamals. One of which is social order and dominace. All mamals do it, whales, rats, dogs, and primates. That is not a classless encouraging behavior. That is not conjecture and it is in our genes.

Mammals kill each other too.

Should we condone murder because it is "in our genes"?

Merely because other members of our phylum do it doesn't mean we should. Because we are sentient we have the ability to transcend such animalistic traits, indeed it is doing exactly that which is what defines human society.

Any urges and wants. As long as they are there, somone (maybe a hooker) is going to trade to satisfy those urges.

Again, not if there is nothing to trade.

In capitalism hookers hook, because they need money.

In communism there would be no such need. There wouldn't be anything of "value" for you to trade. As I said before, scarcity isn't enough. It doesn't matter how rare something is if it doesn't have "value", and without that valuation no "trade" can happen.

Sorry but prostitution is societal, it is just as ephemeral as everything else.

Vinny Rafarino

1st December 2004, 06:23

But doesn't that essentially amount to equalizing all capitalist subjugation when used in response to: [gender oppression is certainly what sets [prostitution] apart from other capitalistic practices]

Yes, you could see it that way as a third party.

My response was based on the information posted in the first part of his post. He, like I, knew exactly what I was referring to.

In any case I will however respond to the portion you have brought up:

Prostitution has as much to do with "gender opression" than playing twister with the ghost of Mama Cass.

Folks. I think your missing my fundamental question. Supply and demand. It is a hallmark of capitalism.

As long as there are urges. There is a demand. Hookers will follow.

I've heard some idiotic statements in my time but this most certainly runs to the top of the list faster than Jesse Owens.

Unless there are enough hookers willing to satisify all the urges. Then there is enough demand to make a scarescity. So when the world become communist. Unless urges can be nullified, there will always be capitalism somewhere.

I stand corrected, this is definitely mush more idiotic.

What is stopping people right now from just 'giving' away sex?

Nothing silly, I "give it away" quite frequently.

Whould that be great? Sure I'd loooooove to live in a communist society. I could have all the sex I want.

Doubtful.

In a "communist society", you would have to rely on charm, personality and physical attraction.

Forgive me if I'm wrong ( :lol: ) but I would lay 6 to 1 that you wash out on all three.

The fact of the matter is: who really gives a fuck all?

Prostitution, by its very definition won't even exist in a communist society.

I prefer to think about things that actually matter.

The Grapes of Wrath

1st December 2004, 06:37

Exactly, I agree with RAF. I refrained from simpley expressing in my last post that I believed this to be a terrible and pointless thread. I'm a nice guy I suppose.

But, now that it is out there, who does really care? The people will be free, they will develop answers to their problems, let it be so.

I find it hard to believe that sex will bring down a whole society, unless it is "1984," in which case ... good.

TGOW

synthesis

1st December 2004, 06:56

I'm not talking about greed.

I'm talking about desire and urges. As long as there are these urges. Such as sex, there will be value exchange. That is how the worlds oldest profession was born. The urges where there first, the value exchange came about naturally.

Any urges and wants. As long as they are there, somone (maybe a hooker) is going to trade to satisfy those urges. Of course this is all conjecture.

As a side note. About human behavior. Humans are mammals. They have fundamental mamal behavior common to ALL mamals. One of which is social order and dominace. All mamals do it, whales, rats, dogs, and primates. That is not a classless encouraging behavior. That is not conjecture and it is in our genes.

Damn, dude, you completely missed the point.

Prostitution has as much to do with "gender opression" than playing twister with the ghost of Mama Cass.

I would venture to disagree. I think prostitution and polygamy are similar creatures, and I'm aware of your stance on polygamy. There is nothing inherently sexist about either of them, but the way that they manifest themselves in the real world is rarely anything but patriarchal, chauvinistic and exploitative.

There is obviously the chance that both of them are simply the free expression of love or lust between private individuals. There is the oft-cited case of the woman or man making a living off an activity s/he enjoys, and the multi-tiered love relationship between a group of bisexuals. However, sex slave traders and Mormons, respectively, kind of ruin it for everyone.

ComradeHuipe

1st December 2004, 19:35

if communist was to installed, the issue of prostitution would never come since there wouldtn be any. many people turn to prostitution since they need the money and they have no other way to get it...

...plus where else could you make 300 dollars a night..which depends on how expensive the hooker is...

...communism would eliminate poverty, consequently eliminating prostitution...cus there wouldnt be people so poor that they would turn to selling their bodies...

ahhh_money_is_comfort

2nd December 2004, 04:42

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 1 2004, 06:15 AM

I'm not talking about greed.

I'm talking about desire and urges. As long as there are these urges. Such as sex, there will be value exchange. That is how the worlds oldest profession was born. The urges where there first, the value exchange came about naturally.

As Dyermaker said, the only true "urges" are biological, and, with the exception of sex, communist society will entirely satisfy them.

There will be no need for "value exchange". There will be no need for hookers.

I'm not talking about greed.

Yes you are.

The "urges" you speak of, the ones that aren't biological, what are they if not "greed"?

Wanting things...

Materialism is as much a societal creation as anything else, it is not biological. Comparing material greed to sex is ludicrous.

As a side note. About human behavior. Humans are mammals. They have fundamental mamal behavior common to ALL mamals. One of which is social order and dominace. All mamals do it, whales, rats, dogs, and primates. That is not a classless encouraging behavior. That is not conjecture and it is in our genes.

Mammals kill each other too.

Should we condone murder because it is "in our genes"?

Merely because other members of our phylum do it doesn't mean we should. Because we are sentient we have the ability to transcend such animalistic traits, indeed it is doing exactly that which is what defines human society.

Any urges and wants. As long as they are there, somone (maybe a hooker) is going to trade to satisfy those urges.

Again, not if there is nothing to trade.

In capitalism hookers hook, because they need money.

In communism there would be no such need. There wouldn't be anything of "value" for you to trade. As I said before, scarcity isn't enough. It doesn't matter how rare something is if it doesn't have "value", and without that valuation no "trade" can happen.

Sorry but prostitution is societal, it is just as ephemeral as everything else.
Greed? Again I'm not just talking about greed.

Social dominance? How about that? Social dominance seems to weaken classlessness and no value exchange. It is an urge just like sex.

Again there are more urges. Children?

Love for children? To want for them to have more and better things, not just material things. Any thing you can imagine, if you really love your own children don't you want them to have the best?

As long as there are urges, the urges are going to bring down communism. Sex example is just one small example. As long as there is an urge for more and better things, what eveer that thing is, there is going to scarcity and hording for selfish reasons.

Ok maybe urges are is not a good term. Maybe it is more closer to 'want'. Wanting things, what ever it is, experiences, material, emotional gratification, sensual, ego, what ever it is, as long as 'want' is not controlled; communism is going to not work.

Which loops back to another question in my China thread. Please see that. It is in regards to conjecture weather or not communism is superior to capitialism in producing more 'stuff'.

ahhh_money_is_comfort

2nd December 2004, 04:45

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 07:35 PM

...communism would eliminate poverty, consequently eliminating prostitution...cus there wouldnt be people so poor that they would turn to selling their bodies...
Please join me in the China communism thread?

We are touching on this idea.

Basically you don't know if that is true? Communism is not around so you don't really know if communism will do this?

The Garbage Disposal Unit

2nd December 2004, 12:41

Ah, Mike (As in "Microphone") what you're suggesting is that prostitution somehow meets the sexual needs of the population under capitalism - however, that's just not true!

Furthermore, in a free society, I imagine a better understanding of sex (And SAFE sex!) will likely make it a much more acceptable and popular recreation, as confused dogmas and anachronistic moralism give way to free love . . . Dig it!

At the very least, I don't expect the disapearence of prostitution in a gift economy (Were there prostitutes in native North American societies?) will really have a noticable negative effect on the number of people having sex. If so, I think it's a small price to pay for the liberation of large numbers of women (and a few men) from an industry based on their reduction to commodities.

LSD

2nd December 2004, 14:50

Greed? Again I'm not just talking about greed.

Ok maybe urges are is not a good term. Maybe it is more closer to 'want'. Wanting things, what ever it is, experiences, material, emotional gratification, sensual, ego, what ever it is, as long as 'want' is not controlled; communism is going to not work.

Oh, you're not talking about greed, you're talking about wanting material things.

:lol:

Love for children? To want for them to have more and better things, not just material things. Any thing you can imagine, if you really love your own children don't you want them to have the best?

"Having the best" is a capitalist construction.

You want your children to be happy, it is materialistic cultures that subvert that desire into wanting your children to "own things".

As long as there are urges, the urges are going to bring down communism. Sex example is just one small example. As long as there is an urge for more and better things, what eveer that thing is, there is going to scarcity and hording for selfish reasons.

Firstly, that "urge" is not an innate human characteristic and will be easily eliminated. But, more importantly, what you're missing in this assumption of yours is that if everyone is satisfied, they really won't be "hoarding" or "trading" anything!

Which loops back to another question in my China thread. Please see that.

Please join me in the China communism thread?

I would advise against that for the sake of your own sanity.

He is making even less sense there than he is here! :unsure: :blink:

ComradeHuipe

2nd December 2004, 17:19

i am not talking about seeing it firsthand, but the ideals of communism would eliminate the need for prostitution...since there wouldnt be any type of poverty.

forcing females to resort to prostitution, as their source of income...look at it this way...if there is no poverty, and there isnt any need for anyone to lower themselves to prostitution...dont you think dat it would eliminate it?

ahhh_money_is_comfort

3rd December 2004, 02:13

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 2 2004, 02:50 PM

Greed? Again I'm not just talking about greed.

Ok maybe urges are is not a good term. Maybe it is more closer to 'want'. Wanting things, what ever it is, experiences, material, emotional gratification, sensual, ego, what ever it is, as long as 'want' is not controlled; communism is going to not work.

Oh, you're not talking about greed, you're talking about wanting material things.

:lol:

Love for children? To want for them to have more and better things, not just material things. Any thing you can imagine, if you really love your own children don't you want them to have the best?

"Having the best" is a capitalist construction.

You want your children to be happy, it is materialistic cultures that subvert that desire into wanting your children to "own things".

As long as there are urges, the urges are going to bring down communism. Sex example is just one small example. As long as there is an urge for more and better things, what eveer that thing is, there is going to scarcity and hording for selfish reasons.

Firstly, that "urge" is not an innate human characteristic and will be easily eliminated. But, more importantly, what you're missing in this assumption of yours is that if everyone is satisfied, they really won't be "hoarding" or "trading" anything!

Which loops back to another question in my China thread. Please see that.

Please join me in the China communism thread?

I would advise against that for the sake of your own sanity.

He is making even less sense there than he is here! :unsure: :blink:
How about social dominace?

Fame?

Popularity?

Vanity?

Sorry 'urges' is the best I can name it. What I guess I'm really talking about is any behavior in people that makes them want to have 'more' of these things than thier peers. Such as I want to be better looking. I want to be famous. I want to be accepted and praised. I want social status.

All these seem to be destructive to communism. They are not about durable goods. So what I talk about 'urges' 'needs' and 'wants', yes I'm talking about the durable goods AND the fame, vanity, acceptance, and social rank.

All these are urges and behaviors that are not easily separated from each other. Social domiance and fame and popularity are all tied together. Social domaine. It is something that we as mamals do NATURALLY.

Yes I'm probably not making sense to you, I really don't speak your langauge on your wavelengh. But hey another propblem with that. I am a very education and pretty intelligent person. It would be communisms job to bring about and communicate to the masses, if I don't get it, what makes you think a worker is going to get it? Especially if your not talking on thier wavelength.

ahhh_money_is_comfort

3rd December 2004, 02:20

Originally posted by Virgin Molotov [email protected] 2 2004, 12:41 PM
Ah, Mike (As in "Microphone") what you're suggesting is that prostitution somehow meets the sexual needs of the population under capitalism - however, that's just not true!

Furthermore, in a free society, I imagine a better understanding of sex (And SAFE sex!) will likely make it a much more acceptable and popular recreation, as confused dogmas and anachronistic moralism give way to free love . . . Dig it!

At the very least, I don't expect the disapearence of prostitution in a gift economy (Were there prostitutes in native North American societies?) will really have a noticable negative effect on the number of people having sex. If so, I think it's a small price to pay for the liberation of large numbers of women (and a few men) from an industry based on their reduction to commodities.
Please drop the sex. This is not really about sex. The point is as long as there are needs and wants in people. There will be value exchange of some kind. This is the fatal flaw of communism. I'm not talking about the motivation to work. What I'm talking about is needs and want in people. Even food. After there is enough to eat as far as basics, then you start to want steak. Then if everyone in the world get a fill of steak, they want kobe beef. This is not just about material wants. This is almost about immaterial wants. As long as there is not enough of 'things' there is scaracity and there is value exchange.

I have yet to see credible proof that communims WILL make enough to satisfy wants. Thus communism if it can not serve the wants, it is doomed to keep producing a series of failed revolutions that will end in mass graves and suffering. Because that is what I see happening. The revolutions starting out meaning well, then becomming and ending up as monsters.

pandora

3rd December 2004, 04:47

Just read a reply by a woman who was a ten year dancer in the industry, she talked about the customers who came night after night, we were unable to relate to women in any real intimate way, even talking, and how coming in the clubs night after night didn't help them at all, they were more desperate then when they started due to their inability to actually talk to a woman.

As long as we try to substitute our wants
in this case for the materialism of believing you have possessed the body of another, the most basic materialism you can have.

And not the needs for real intimacy. People will be stuck wanting. It's an endless cycle that keeps the profiteers, many companies have stock in the sex industry, it's a $20 Billion a year industry world wide, and that's a conservative estimate.

Most forms of it harm the workers in some way and go against labor unions.
Anyhoo, for instance in Pennsylvania, the steel workers who are unionized go to see girls who are private contractors and are blocked from unionizing, though the guys support their unionization for the most part, but the adminstration of many unions and labor commission won't honor sex workers, as they are "beneath" him in his mind.

If you see the girls and the steel workers, you realize they are from the same community. And the women of that community are getting pimped, that's extortion without labor rights plain and simple.

synthesis

3rd December 2004, 05:31

Social dominance? How about that? Social dominance seems to weaken classlessness and no value exchange. It is an urge just like sex.

No, it's not. There have been unhierarchical societies (the term is "primitive communism") in the distant past that lasted until they were destroyed from without - and there would be no 'without' in a global, post-capitalist communist society.

Social domiance and fame and popularity are all tied together. Social domaine. It is something that we as mamals do NATURALLY.

Can you point me to a 'tendency for social dominance' DNA gene? Or how else would it be natural to mammals without it having being learned through experience from other mammals - which would suggest that it could then be 'unlearned' in favor of a relatively harmonic and enriching world for everyone?

To want for them to have more and better things, not just material things. Any thing you can imagine, if you really love your own children don't you want them to have the best?

Most people can't get shit for their kids under capitalism. That is a material motivation for the people to transition to communism.

In our current society, a parent is made to feel that they are inadequate if they aren't buying their kids all the video games, expensive toys, and other crap they want.

It has everything to do with 'material things' right now and communism would free up a whole lot of time for significantly happier parents to spend with their kids doing those 'immaterial things'. Also, parental relationships would not be strained by financial constraint. Kids who see abuse in the household are much more likely to abuse their partners once they get into similar situations. We would see a massive decrease of domestic abuse which can only help in creating a society of people willing to help each other out in hard times and without relationships based on power - leading to your supposed 'social dominance' - which is ultimately what domestic abuse is based on.

Professor Moneybags

3rd December 2004, 18:39

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 1 2004, 06:23 AM
Doubtful.

In a "communist society", you would have to rely on charm, personality and physical attraction.
Nah, the people could just demand a "right to sex" (right to rape) in addition to all of those other positive rights that involve the initiation of force against other people.

Professor Moneybags

3rd December 2004, 18:41

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 07:35 PM
...communism would eliminate poverty,
I don't suppose you have any idea how communism is going to "do" this, do you ?

ahhh_money_is_comfort

4th December 2004, 06:11

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Dec 3 2004, 06:41 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ Dec 3 2004, 06:41 PM)
[email protected] 1 2004, 07:35 PM
...communism would eliminate poverty,
I don't suppose you have any idea how communism is going to "do" this, do you ? [/b]
My contention in Is China Communist, is that such statements are thrown about as fact. That is it going to happen. Well I venture the best you can say about communist and poverty is it MAY happen and that your guess is as good as mine. Especially in the absense of any kind of micro experiment or small scale test.

Oh wait. The small scale test exist:

http://www.thefarm.org/

They are HIPPIES! When I say hippies, I don't mean that as an insult. I mean as a suprise. Does that suprise the commies here? That basically you got to make the world into hippies for communism to work? I don't want to be a hippie and have a grooovy outlook on life. I like my state of mind just the way it is.

Now this is my guess. But this kind of attitude is going to have to run the world for communism to work. Plus I really doubt if most communist can really grooove like a hippie. Just guessing could Che be grooovey?

Vinny Rafarino

5th December 2004, 15:57

It's boring to see that yet again another misguided capitalist attempts to relate a communal society with a communist one.

You really need to do some reading kiddo.

inquisitive_socialist

5th December 2004, 21:17

its also boring to see you cut down another honest question simply beacause you don't have an intelligent argument RAF. you should do some reading kiddo, like See Spot Run maybe, you know picture books so you don't strain you limited intellect.

Vinny Rafarino

5th December 2004, 21:25

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 09:17 PM
its also boring to see you cut down another honest question simply beacause you don't have an intelligent argument RAF. you should do some reading kiddo, like See Spot Run maybe, you know picture books so you don't strain you limited intellect.
Does anyone else find the fact that this kid here has decided that defending a silly capitalistic ideal (Communism being synonymous with hippy communalism) is just fine as long as he gets to have a go at me.

I think it's time to change your name; inquisitive "socialist" may not be appropriate for you.

ahhh_money_is_comfort

5th December 2004, 22:21

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 5 2004, 03:57 PM
It's boring to see that yet again another misguided capitalist attempts to relate a communal society with a communist one.

You really need to do some reading kiddo.
Your right I probably don't know the details of communist theory. I do know this. I know the difference between proof and theory. The theory by itself does not prove anything.

That is the point I am making. Communist here throw the thoery around like it is proof, it is not. Any attempt to shoot down my questions based on theory as a evidence or support is not good logic, quite frankly it is dark age reasoning.

ahhh_money_is_comfort

5th December 2004, 22:26

Originally posted by Comrade RAF+Dec 5 2004, 09:25 PM--> (Comrade RAF @ Dec 5 2004, 09:25 PM)
[email protected] 5 2004, 09:17 PM
its also boring to see you cut down another honest question simply beacause you don't have an intelligent argument RAF. you should do some reading kiddo, like See Spot Run maybe, you know picture books so you don't strain you limited intellect.
Does anyone else find the fact that this kid here has decided that defending a silly capitalistic ideal (Communism being synonymous with hippy communalism) is just fine as long as he gets to have a go at me.

I think it's time to change your name; inquisitive "socialist" may not be appropriate for you. [/b]
My point here is that without a doubt I point to communal living and a communist idea right now. I can point to it as a living example. Here is a 'mission statement' from the farm:

We wanted to see what we could do;

To learn how to live together as self-sufficiently as possible;

We wanted to work together in a caring environment;

We wanted to escape the capitalistic greed and hypocrisy;

We wanted to create a lifestyle that would be fair to raise our kids;

To get away from the city and take care of ones self;

To learn how to live together in a spirit of honesty and compassion, to raise sane healthy children, to live as self- sufficiently as possible.

- http://www.thefarm.org/lifestyle/cmnl.html

You can not ignore the fact that these 'communist' principles only viably exist as a farming community and NOT in any industrial model that I can point to today. So I say get used to idea of the hard work on a farm, chances are if communism works it is going to be in a agriculture type society. I hope I don't get dragged into the dream. I'm not vegaterian, I love cheeseburgers and prime rib. I cound never exist in this successful communist experiment.

ahhh_money_is_comfort

5th December 2004, 22:28

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 05:31 AM

Social dominance? How about that? Social dominance seems to weaken classlessness and no value exchange. It is an urge just like sex.

No, it's not. There have been unhierarchical societies (the term is "primitive communism") in the distant past that lasted until they were destroyed from without - and there would be no 'without' in a global, post-capitalist communist society.

Social domiance and fame and popularity are all tied together. Social domaine. It is something that we as mamals do NATURALLY.

Can you point me to a 'tendency for social dominance' DNA gene? Or how else would it be natural to mammals without it having being learned through experience from other mammals - which would suggest that it could then be 'unlearned' in favor of a relatively harmonic and enriching world for everyone?

To want for them to have more and better things, not just material things. Any thing you can imagine, if you really love your own children don't you want them to have the best?

Most people can't get shit for their kids under capitalism. That is a material motivation for the people to transition to communism.

In our current society, a parent is made to feel that they are inadequate if they aren't buying their kids all the video games, expensive toys, and other crap they want.

It has everything to do with 'material things' right now and communism would free up a whole lot of time for significantly happier parents to spend with their kids doing those 'immaterial things'. Also, parental relationships would not be strained by financial constraint. Kids who see abuse in the household are much more likely to abuse their partners once they get into similar situations. We would see a massive decrease of domestic abuse which can only help in creating a society of people willing to help each other out in hard times and without relationships based on power - leading to your supposed 'social dominance' - which is ultimately what domestic abuse is based on.
Can you send me links regarding these societies, maybe more keyword searches?

I can not find these societies.

I understand primitive communism as applied to communial ownership of land and machinery in a small farm village. Which is what example I mostly find. Of course it would be easy to be classless in a small farm village. Sorry I don't see the same examples where there is more division of labor in a society.

DaCuBaN

6th December 2004, 00:09

It is interesting to see where this discussion has led...

What I guess I'm really talking about is any behavior in people that makes them want to have 'more' of these things than thier peers.

As has been outlined, this is what we refer to as greed or avarice:

"From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Greed is a desire to obtain more money or material possessions or bodily satisfaction than one is considered to need. A more religious term for greed is avarice, which is listed as one of the Seven Deadly Sins.

Greedy individuals are often believed to be harmful to society as their motives often appear to disregard the welfare of others: if one person is to increase in wealth, somebody else must be decreasing in wealth (assuming, of course, that a market economy is a zero sum game). However, greed has become more acceptable (and the word less frequent) in Western culture, where the desire to acquire wealth is an important part of capitalism.

Gluttony is a form of greed relating specifically to food and drink. Although eating disorders are widespread, the term "gluttony" is seldom used outside religious discussion.

Greed in the Buddhist sense is a form of attachment, a deluded view that exaggerates the positive aspects of an object."

Such as I want to be better looking. I want to be famous. I want to be accepted and praised. I want social status.

Might I pose a counter-question? For you to be praised, that praise must be diverted from another party to yourself. For you to have what you want, another must go without. Do you wish for that other to go without?

ahhh_money_is_comfort

6th December 2004, 01:54

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 12:09 AM
It is interesting to see where this discussion has led...

What I guess I'm really talking about is any behavior in people that makes them want to have 'more' of these things than thier peers.

As has been outlined, this is what we refer to as greed or avarice:

"From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Greed is a desire to obtain more money or material possessions or bodily satisfaction than one is considered to need. A more religious term for greed is avarice, which is listed as one of the Seven Deadly Sins.

Greedy individuals are often believed to be harmful to society as their motives often appear to disregard the welfare of others: if one person is to increase in wealth, somebody else must be decreasing in wealth (assuming, of course, that a market economy is a zero sum game). However, greed has become more acceptable (and the word less frequent) in Western culture, where the desire to acquire wealth is an important part of capitalism.

Gluttony is a form of greed relating specifically to food and drink. Although eating disorders are widespread, the term "gluttony" is seldom used outside religious discussion.

Greed in the Buddhist sense is a form of attachment, a deluded view that exaggerates the positive aspects of an object."

Such as I want to be better looking. I want to be famous. I want to be accepted and praised. I want social status.

Might I pose a counter-question? For you to be praised, that praise must be diverted from another party to yourself. For you to have what you want, another must go without. Do you wish for that other to go without?
Please try to read on. When I mean 'things' I just don't mean material goods. I also mean social status, beauty, praise, power, fame, sex, or anything a person may want for whatever the reason.

Regarding priase? Have others go without it? I would say no. But the reality is I am a mammal. We do it all the time and without even knowing about it. We want high social status, fame and praise could comprise high social status. Wanting social status is a mamalian trait. We all do it, from whales, to rats. We sort out social order.

DaCuBaN

6th December 2004, 02:13

You see this "difference" you're trying to point us to? You see the puzzlement from the posters around you? It's all because that "difference" you try to show us doesn't exist!

Greed is a desire to obtain more money or material possessions or bodily satisfaction than one is considered to need. A more religious term for greed is avarice, which is listed as one of the Seven Deadly Sins.

So greed is almost synonymous with want, and detached from need in regards to excess. Fame, acceptance and such are simply other forms of bodily satisfaction - the last time I checked my head and hence psyche - the world inside your head, if you will - was firmly attached to my spine.

Have others go without it? I would say no. But the reality is I am a mammal. We do it all the time and without even knowing about it. We want high social status, fame and praise could comprise high social status. Wanting social status is a mamalian trait. We all do it, from whales, to rats. We sort out social order.

I do not dispute this - what I dispute is your belief that all we can be is a mammal; that we have no control over the human animal and it's instincts; that we are a slave to our mammalian traits. Stop and ask yourself; when was the last time you couldn't stop yourself from bending the girl next to you over and giving her one? When was the last time you couldn't stop yourself from picking lice out of your fellow's hair?

When was the last time you actually submitted yourself to these "mammalian instincts" you speak of?

ahhh_money_is_comfort

6th December 2004, 02:49

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 02:13 AM
You see this "difference" you're trying to point us to? You see the puzzlement from the posters around you? It's all because that "difference" you try to show us doesn't exist!

Greed is a desire to obtain more money or material possessions or bodily satisfaction than one is considered to need. A more religious term for greed is avarice, which is listed as one of the Seven Deadly Sins.

So greed is almost synonymous with want, and detached from need in regards to excess. Fame, acceptance and such are simply other forms of bodily satisfaction - the last time I checked my head and hence psyche - the world inside your head, if you will - was firmly attached to my spine.

Have others go without it? I would say no. But the reality is I am a mammal. We do it all the time and without even knowing about it. We want high social status, fame and praise could comprise high social status. Wanting social status is a mamalian trait. We all do it, from whales, to rats. We sort out social order.

I do not dispute this - what I dispute is your belief that all we can be is a mammal; that we have no control over the human animal and it's instincts; that we are a slave to our mammalian traits. Stop and ask yourself; when was the last time you couldn't stop yourself from bending the girl next to you over and giving her one? When was the last time you couldn't stop yourself from picking lice out of your fellow's hair?

When was the last time you actually submitted yourself to these "mammalian instincts" you speak of?
What I'm saying is communism is fighting a lot of natural urges. Back to urges again. Yes human can control urges to a degree, but basically we are mamals and communism does not recognize that. Proof:

5 Billion people and people boinking all the time to make more. Boinking is the rule, not boinking is the exception.

Social stratification is EVERYWHERE among humans. Someone mentioned 'primitive communism', but I have not done enough looking into that yet to set if there was true classless societies in primitive communism. To date I have found sites discussing material distribution and division of labor, but no evidence of classlessness. Although I could see how one could exist in a small agriculture village.

How about you? Do you measure yourself against other people? Do you do it? If you do then your classing people and stratifying people. I know you do it, your a mammal. If you as a communist do it, then why should you expect people who are lesser communist to do it?

But really all this discussion reminds of a Star Trek discussion board and talk of worm holes and hyperspace. Unless someone can point to a worm hole and hyperspace then it is all just theory and imagination isn't it?

DaCuBaN

6th December 2004, 03:04

5 Billion people and people boinking all the time to make more. Boinking is the rule, not boinking is the exception.

Indeed - although I thought the population was past six billion already. This is considered an obstacle, as part of the problem is the disparity of person-placement across the globe, and overpopulation - not simply exploitation of human by human. Many people think we would require the population to drop below two billion prior to the end of the revolution.

Do you measure yourself against other people? ... If you do then your classing people and stratifying people.

I do unfortunately partake in a little "pigeonholing", but I'm also aware of this and make an effort to avoid doing so. On site, you cannot take an accurate judgement of a situation; to do so would require a lifetime.

Given my profession, I'm constantly dealing with people who seem to act in "stupid" ways, or can't grasp what to me appear to be simple premises: By remembering that the problem stems from ignorance and not stupidity, such thoughts are easily subdued.

Again, it's all about self-control, although plenty of people here will surely disagree ;)

If you as a communist do it, then why should you expect people who are lesser communist to do it?

For the record, I'm no communist per se. Typical to the above, I try to avoid pertaining to a single ideology, and "play the field" in regards to defining my own. All I know is that I'm anti-capitalist, anti-globalisation, anti-religion and pro-revolution. The rest can wait until the immediate problem is solved.

DaCuBaN

6th December 2004, 03:06

this discussion reminds of a Star Trek discussion board and talk of worm holes and hyperspace. Unless someone can point to a worm hole and hyperspace then it is all just theory and imagination isn't it?

I can't say I've had the pleasure, but indeed you will find a considerable amount of conjecture on this site: Given the attempts so far at "communism" outwith Paris, we don't really have an awful lot of material to work from that could be considered succesful.

Don't Change Your Name

6th December 2004, 14:16

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 07:58 PM
Would there be prostitution in a communist system?

Would prostituts just stand on a corner and 'give it away' for free?
Ask your mum to see if she would work for free.

Just kidding :D :lol:

I'm not sure about how that would work. That would depend on how does such an economy function.

Exploited Class

6th December 2004, 21:46

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 28 2004, 12:19 PM
If no money/trade exists, the only alternative is force. I think the issue of rape is "sociologically relevant", at least as far as the victim is concerned.
You obviously don't know shinola about rape. Rape is about power and controll issues, not sexual release issues.

If it was about sexual release issues, High Schools would occure a couple hundred rapes an hour. I find it hard to believe that every single person in the world is either

A. Paying for sex

or

B. Raping somebody.

I doubt that prostitution will dissolve with any form of economic structure. Considering since prostitution has existed for pretty much ever, through thousands of different types of micro-economies and societies, it will not be going anywhere.

People of this thread have put some type of quality of being, for having abundant sex for trade. It is neither wrong or bad, it is neither right or good. For many people it is just a job and the main reason that it would have a bad light on it is because of Moral Objections and the fact that illegal trade happens for the most part in bad areas with bad people. It is dirty and dangerous, involving paying for protection and taking place in run down horrible hotels. However don't tell that to the 1000 dollar and hour prostitute that visits you in Beverely Hills.

50% of my friends have been prostitutes at some time. In our early 20s we were poor, and a nice dinner, great evening with a semi-attractive person, can go pretty far.

Personally I don't see prostitution going away, but I see single people using swinging parties more often. As the Moral Majority *cough cough* goes away and people say, "I want sex and you want sex and I don't want a relationship and there is nothing wrong with that." more swing parties for singles will happen.

This age old false belief that women do not want sex, needs to go away, it is outdated.

inquisitive_socialist

7th December 2004, 21:22

This is the way i figure it. The "need" for a capitalist economy is learned, not an actual need.however, the need for sex is party of being living. if you don't want to procreate you won't and thats one less strain of non procreative DNA, i.e less people that don't want/need sex. After a while, and i think were near this point, everyone at somepoint need sex. some people need it and cant get it and will therefore turn to those who give it in a foem of exchange.(either money or services rendered) I think this will happen regardless of the government or capitalism or anything.Also,sex isn't capitalist so defending a question about it doesnt make me a capitalist. RAF, your biased opinion makes about as much of an impact as my biased opinion. VERY LITTLE! you have to either let people theorize and learn through discovery or we are stuck in a intellectual and mental dark age.

Vinny Rafarino

8th December 2004, 00:36

RAF, your biased opinion makes about as much of an impact as my biased opinion.

What exactly makes my opinion "biased"?

Do I currently have a stable of whores that trick for me on Lexington and 148th street?

No.

Do I visit hookers enough to warrant me actually being upset if the profession was suddenly to cease to exist?

Considering the fact I have not taken a hooker for over 15 years, I would also have to say no.

The truth is that you use this and your other account to follow me around attempting to have a go at me regardless of the topic.

It never ceases to amaze me how easy it is to get under the skin of silly frauds like yourself.

you have to either let people theorize and learn through discovery or we are stuck in a intellectual and mental dark age.

Forgive me if I feel free to dismiss "advice" given by an individual that cannot use the word "biased" properly.

ahhh_money_is_comfort

8th December 2004, 01:20

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 03:06 AM

this discussion reminds of a Star Trek discussion board and talk of worm holes and hyperspace. Unless someone can point to a worm hole and hyperspace then it is all just theory and imagination isn't it?

I can't say I've had the pleasure, but indeed you will find a considerable amount of conjecture on this site: Given the attempts so far at "communism" outwith Paris, we don't really have an awful lot of material to work from that could be considered succesful.
That is my whole point. The danger is that there really is very little what communist theory can reliably predict or can be trusted to predict. Yet there are so many people here that are so sure that the thoery will work exactly as it is written on paper. If were talking about shooting the breeze, like discussing Star Trek, OK. But that is not what is happening here, communist here are trying to convince me that they are right, not only right that communist revolution will follow the thoery on paper.

Osman Ghazi

8th December 2004, 01:57

that is not what is happening here, communist here are trying to convince me that they are right, not only right that communist revolution will follow the thoery on paper.

Yeah, it happens everywhere you go. Zealots will tell you that Christ is comin' back, capitalists will tell you that privatising something will make everyone richer. But they don't know for sure. No one does. That's just life.

Now, anyone who tries to tell you that a revolution will go down and communism will instantly appear is just pulling shit out of their ass. They don't know for sure if that will happen. All they really know is that communism would be ideal, in that it is consistent with their moral views.

Now, can I say for sure that communism is coming or that it will really work when it gets here? No, obviously not.

But what I'm damn sure of is this: if we even get close to communism, the world will have improved a great deal. The other thing that I'm sure of is that the system we have now sucks ass, and that is a fact. What else can it be changed to?

Vinny Rafarino

8th December 2004, 03:43

You can not ignore the fact that these 'communist' principles only viably exist as a farming community and NOT in any industrial model that I can point to today. So I say get used to idea of the hard work on a farm, chances are if communism works it is going to be in a agriculture type society. I hope I don't get dragged into the dream. I'm not vegaterian, I love cheeseburgers and prime rib. I cound never exist in this successful communist experiment.

What exactly makes these principles Communist in nature?

Considering that you freely admit (Remember this: " Your [sic] right I probably don't know the details of communist theory") that you haven't got an actual clue about Communism, why exactly do you think that you would know what is or isn't a Communist "principle"?

Since you have yet to do the reading I suggested, I will instruct you myself. Normally I cannot be bothered with individuals such as yourself but I happen to be rather bored tonight so let's see how many of these "Communist principles" actually resemble Communism:

We wanted to see what we could do;

Communism is not an "experiment" to "see what happens"; it's considered to be a real political and social alternative to a capitalist society.

To learn how to live together as self-sufficiently as possible

I didn't know that the desire to be self sufficient was only a Communist concept. If I remember correctly, a major fundamental principle of the conservative party is the need to reform the welfare system because these people must learn how to be "self sufficient" and get off living on the tax payer's dollar.

We wanted to work together in a caring environment

Who doesn't want to work in a caring environment? If you had a choice to go to work everyday in a "caring" environment or an abusing hell hole, what would you prefer?

We wanted to escape the capitalistic greed and hypocrisy

Escape capitalist greed and hypocrisy by incorporating and producing profit.

Hardly a communist ideal.

We wanted to create a lifestyle that would be fair to raise our kids;

Would you prefer "unfair"?

To get away from the city and take care of ones self;

I personally like the city. As a matter of fact, I dispise a rural environment.

To learn how to live together in a spirit of honesty and compassion, to raise sane healthy children, to live as self- sufficiently as possible.

I already covered these.

Since you still have yet to get it, (I'm beginning to wonder if you even have the capabability) I will point you to your own "evidence": The Farm's web site.

The Farm
Summertown, Tennessee, USA
Communal Living

Intent: To better understand some of the reasons behind the movement toward communal living during the late 1960s and early 1970s and some of the purposes for this social reconstruction.[B]

Even the farm recognises the fact that their experiment has nothing at all in common with Communism and considers their community to be "communal" in nature.

Did you bother to even read the material?

Furthermore, you keep raving about how Communism is only theoretical and therefore cannot be considered to be anything more than rhetoric yet you seem to be quite adamant about how you "think" that if Communism became a reality, it would be an "agriculture type" society.

Would or would that not be considered a "theory"? So what you are really trying to say is that the theory of Communism is bunk unless of course that theory happens to be your own.

Your intellect and knowledge do not match your arrogance son.

Commie Rat

18th December 2004, 11:55

For the sake of discusison, presume that all prostitution in this regard is consentual. Believe it or not, there are people in this world who can think of nothing better than sexual intercourse/gratification for a living - irregardless of the partners concerned.

yer there called "skanks"

ÑóẊîöŉ

18th December 2004, 21:15

Is there something wrong about enjoying lots and lots of sex?

Do you look down on promiscuity in men also? Do you call them 'skanks'?

Please think about the implications of your position.

Commie Rat

18th December 2004, 23:30

sry no insult meant

The Garbage Disposal Unit

19th December 2004, 17:10

Its a rather important point CR, the bizzare lines our society has placed between many and women in matters of sexuality have to be torn down, and I think, as conscious revolutionaries, we ought to work to spearhead this charge.

I had a point about the abolition of prostitution and the greater matter of revolution, but was distracted by a hackey-sack.

ahhh_money_is_comfort

25th December 2004, 15:23

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 8 2004, 03:43 AM

[b]You can not ignore the fact that these 'communist' principles only viably exist as a farming community and NOT in any industrial model that I can point to today. So I say get used to idea of the hard work on a farm, chances are if communism works it is going to be in a agriculture type society. I hope I don't get dragged into the dream. I'm not vegaterian, I love cheeseburgers and prime rib. I cound never exist in this successful communist experiment.

What exactly makes these principles Communist in nature?

Considering that you freely admit (Remember this: " Your [sic] right I probably don't know the details of communist theory") that you haven't got an actual clue about Communism, why exactly do you think that you would know what is or isn't a Communist "principle"?

Since you have yet to do the reading I suggested, I will instruct you myself. Normally I cannot be bothered with individuals such as yourself but I happen to be rather bored tonight so let's see how many of these "Communist principles" actually resemble Communism:

We wanted to see what we could do;

Communism is not an "experiment" to "see what happens"; it's considered to be a real political and social alternative to a capitalist society.

To learn how to live together as self-sufficiently as possible

I didn't know that the desire to be self sufficient was only a Communist concept. If I remember correctly, a major fundamental principle of the conservative party is the need to reform the welfare system because these people must learn how to be "self sufficient" and get off living on the tax payer's dollar.

We wanted to work together in a caring environment

Who doesn't want to work in a caring environment? If you had a choice to go to work everyday in a "caring" environment or an abusing hell hole, what would you prefer?

We wanted to escape the capitalistic greed and hypocrisy

Escape capitalist greed and hypocrisy by incorporating and producing profit.

Hardly a communist ideal.

We wanted to create a lifestyle that would be fair to raise our kids;

Would you prefer "unfair"?

To get away from the city and take care of ones self;

I personally like the city. As a matter of fact, I dispise a rural environment.

To learn how to live together in a spirit of honesty and compassion, to raise sane healthy children, to live as self- sufficiently as possible.

I already covered these.

Since you still have yet to get it, (I'm beginning to wonder if you even have the capabability) I will point you to your own "evidence": The Farm's web site.

The Farm
Summertown, Tennessee, USA
Communal Living

Intent: To better understand some of the reasons behind the movement toward communal living during the late 1960s and early 1970s and some of the purposes for this social reconstruction.

Even the farm recognises the fact that their experiment has nothing at all in common with Communism and considers their community to be "communal" in nature.

Did you bother to even read the material?

Furthermore, you keep raving about how Communism is only theoretical and therefore cannot be considered to be anything more than rhetoric yet you seem to be quite adamant about how you "think" that if Communism became a reality, it would be an "agriculture type" society.

Would or would that not be considered a "theory"? So what you are really trying to say is that the theory of Communism is bunk unless of course that theory happens to be your own.

Your intellect and knowledge do not match your arrogance son.
Ok farm not communist. Where can I find examples to examine? Where can I find portions of behavior right now that I would expect to see under communist doctrine?

ahhh_money_is_comfort

25th December 2004, 15:27

Originally posted by Virgin Molotov [email protected] 19 2004, 05:10 PM
Its a rather important point CR, the bizzare lines our society has placed between many and women in matters of sexuality have to be torn down, and I think, as conscious revolutionaries, we ought to work to spearhead this charge.

I had a point about the abolition of prostitution and the greater matter of revolution, but was distracted by a hackey-sack.
Abolish prostittion? I would like to hear more about it. Again the point I make is that there are powerful human urges working agaist that. Plus I can not just envision lots of free sex around. OK maybe I can envision lots of free sex, but not with the women I want. Someone mentioned that I can get free sex to my ability can acquire? That sounds kind of capitialist to me. If I want sex, then should all the beautiful women who I want to have sex with? Aren't their bodies kindof collective?

Osman Ghazi

26th December 2004, 02:40

[/QUOTE] If I want sex, then should all the beautiful women who I want to with? Aren't their bodies kindof collective?[QUOTE]

Well, that would be true, if sex were a commodity, which it isn't. I mean, by that logic, everyone should be your friend too. But things like friendship and sex exist between two people because both of them want it to.

If you want to have lots of sex, you have two choices: get yourself a rubber , or develop attributes that make women want to with you. Have you tried long hair? It worked for me. :lol: :lol: :lol:

ahhh_money_is_comfort

30th December 2004, 20:22

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 26 2004, 02:40 AM
If I want sex, then should all the beautiful women who I want to with? Aren't their bodies kindof collective?

Well, that would be true, if sex were a commodity, which it isn't. I mean, by that logic, everyone should be your friend too. But things like friendship and sex exist between two people because both of them want it to.

If you want to have lots of sex, you have two choices: get yourself a rubber , or develop attributes that make women want to with you. Have you tried long hair? It worked for me. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Sounds like a comidity to me. I want something. Can't have it. How do I get it?

Maybe? Value exchange? With someone willing to exchange value for sex?

Sounds like a market to me and not a collective. I want something, it thus has value. Multiply that the world over with millions of guys. Hmmm? Sounds like a world wide market now, don't you think?