The SWP and strip clubs

[Amusing Scrotum]

Only found out about this today; needless to say, seems like a pretty socially conservative response to the question.
Of course the SWP’s prim and proper stance on such questions is nothing new. They took part in a campaign in 2003 and 2004 to put Spearmint Rhino lap-dancing clubs out of business. Rather than join with the GMB union, which had targeted Spearmint Rhino in order to unionise and defend the women workers, the SWP preferred the company of rightwing feminists and religious bigots in picketing the venues to try and close them down (and put their workers out of a job).

So its recent involvement in a campaign to close lap-dancing clubs in Tower Hamlets is hardly a surprise. But what is slightly shocking is its enthusiasm to ‘clean up’ the East End. The Respect motion to the December borough council meeting had SWP fingerprints all over it. It noted the “almost total unity across Tower Hamlets people of all ages, ethnicities and faith groups in opposing the exploitation and degrading of women associated with sex and strip clubs” and called for the possible use of “discretionary powers” to “safeguard the rights of women, and to protect children and communities (Weekly Worker January 11 2007). It also mentioned “the growing concerns at the impact of strip clubs and other such venues in the borough, and the effect of these on local neighbourhoods”.

George Galloway agrees and commits himself to campaign enthusiastically to “rid Tower Hamlets of these dens of iniquity, especially in residential areas and areas close to places of worship” (www.georgegalloway.com). The Tower Hamlets council meeting ended in chaos, as Respect councillors and their SWP policy-makers sought to shame the Labour Party. Unlike Respect, Labour was not sufficiently puritanical to rid Tower Hamlets of such “dens of iniquity”.

One cannot but wonder what the Respect motion means when it talks about not only the evil of strip clubs, but also “other such venues”. We know George prides himself on his catholic credentials and conservative views on many social issues. He will have plenty of willing supporters in Tower Hamlets (including Respect councillors) for a crackdown on drugs, youth drinking, prostitution, 24-hour licensing … the list is endless. And how far the SWP is prepared to go is anybody’s guess.
--From the article Respect: our new moral guardians (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/659/raunch.htm), published in the Weekly Worker. Well worth a read.

Was anyone involved in the campaign mentioned? How would you justify that? Was anyone involved in the GMB's unionisation efforts? What did you make of the SWP's actions? What about their current course of action, any comment?

[LSD]

That's a thoroughly disgusting record, but not a particularly surprising one, as you yourself have pointed out (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=60932&view=findpost&p=1292238066). But I suppose it does help to explain why our resident SWPer was so retiscent to support the strippers' cause.

Unfortunately this brand of social conservatism is all too common on the left. I imagine a lot of it, as you suggest, comes out of a misconception of just what the working class actually is; but it probably also reflects the social conservative trend that exists in the working class itself.

Most workers are undereducated and underexposed to alternatives to "traditional morality". Unfortunately that means that a good many workers are homophobic, sexist, and all the rest.

Some of the leftist movement has decided that mimicking that reaction, or at least tolerating it, is a good way of upping recruitment.

There's certainly nothing new in that, 100 years ago leading leftists were eagerly shaking hands with rabid segregationists, hell some were even among them. Men like Victor Berger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Berger) are still hailed in some quarters as socialist heroes -- notice that his wikipedia page makes no mention of his ardent racism and segregationism.

You're not going to get many votes campaigning as a racist these days, but you just might get a couple promising to "restore decency" and "clean up" inner cities. It certainly looks like Respect's trying, and it doesn't really surprise me that the SWP's following suit.

That's always been the danger of "revolutionaries" getting into bourgeois politics, the game quickly becomes more important than the cause.

[Cheung Mo]

That's what happens when you get in bed with Islamic theocrats.

[Amusing Scrotum]

I probably should have pointed out in my initial post that the SWP being referred too, is the British SWP -- not the American one which Severian was/is/wants to be a member of. And, given that, I wouldn't say my analysis can apply to this situation.

The British SWP, after all, isn't part of the old guard. It came about in the late 70's/early 80's if memory serves me correctly; and, therefore, it can't be seen as part of the original Leninist tradition like its American counterpart. (Indeed, I'd say very few current Leninist groups can be seen in that tradition today.)

That doesn't mean it doesn't think it's in that tradition; it's just, in reality, it's more a left sect than a semi-decent Bolshevik copy.

Therefore, I find your "it probably also reflects the social conservative trend that exists in the working class itself" explanation better. Just with one change: where this trend exists, at least in this case.

Rather than this particular stance coming from socially conservative sectors of the working class, I'd say the SWP has (mainly) caught this from its rightist allies. Small businessmen who cloak their aspirations under Religious cloaks, middle class feminists like Ariel Levy, etc., etc.

It's the local shopkeeper, after all, who is damaged the most by petty vandalism. And it's the educated middle class woman who is most appalled by "laddetes".

This doesn't mean that, once again, the SWP consciously knows it is doing this. They probably do collectively delude themselves and think that they're recruiting militant workers by toning down on their communist principles. (See the stuff in that article on abortion for another example of them toning down.)

But, that they actually think that, just shows how disconnected from the working class they are.
_ _ _ _ _

Just in case any non-CC members are wondering, the post of mine LSD refers to is this one:
I get the feeling LSD is somewhat surprised by Severian's position on the subject being debated. I don't know why he's surprised -- especially when one considers the political tradition his politics come out of.

I mean, according to that tradition, you can feel sorry for sex workers. "They are," after all, "doubly sacrificed by bourgeois society. First, by its accursed property system, and, secondly, by its accursed moral hypocrisy." But that's about it.

Any notions about organising them as a collective group, are, well, complete folly.

This position is part of a wider political outlook that, to some extent, haunts the left. The outlook that pictures every worker as being a large, lumbering fella' with broad shoulders, stubble and a bit of dirt on his face. Overalls, I suspect, are optional...

Basically, it's the working class seen through the lens of Soviet era propaganda.

Of course, not all workers have a carefully chiselled chin and shovel like hands. Waiters don't, people who work in Supermarkets don't, hairdressers don't ... and sex workers most certainly don't. (Well, most of them don't -- but, I suppose, I shouldn't ignore the phenomena of sex workers who play the role of Soviet Inga circa 1934.)

And it's partly because of these deeply ingrained misconceptions that the overwhelming majority of "the left" turns its back on organising these sections of the working class. After all, when was the last time The Militant published an article concerning the SWP's attempts to organise waitstaff?

1962? 1986? Never?

But, it's not as if it matters. After all, these workers don't have dirt on their face and the characteristics of Lennie Small ... so they're not really "proper" workers.
I suppose there's probably a bit of this in the SWP's approach; I just wouldn't say it was a major factor. Certainly not a bigger one than the influence of their privileged allies.

[Guerrilla22]

I agree, this kind of social moralism on the left is all too common amongst the left these days.

[Red Tung]

I'm not saying that we shouldn't support "sex workers" but...

Do you really consider sex to be labour?

If you do then you're totally lost as a human being.

Perhaps next time you should pay your girlfriend/boyfriend, husband/wife for the provided sexual services. Or how about this idea. It's been known that breastfeeding provides better nutrition for human babies because of human milk unique properties adapted for human infant consumption. Should we have milk producing, lactating human female "workers" that can provide their product for the marketplace? It puts a whole new spin on calling someone a stupid cow doesn't it? :lol:

[Guerrilla22]

they're not selling sex though. they're strippers. They provide entertainment for a wage, its a legit job.

[BobKKKindle$]

I fully support the decision of the SWP.


they're not selling sex though. they're strippers. They provide entertainment for a wage, its a legit job.

The principle is the same; Women are providing a commodity to give men sexual pleasure. Labour is already an alienating and degrading process under Capitalism in formal employment; even more so in the case of employment of a sexual nature. This should not be treated as Social Moralism; Sex work would never be chosen as an occupation and is the worst form of wage labour. Sex is primarily suppossed to be an expression of a bond we feel with someone else - although there is of course nothing wrong with engaging in sex simply for physical pleasure because sex is an activity that is very much the choice of the individual. But when sexual activity can be traded as a commodity it shows that Capitalism has pervaded all aspects of life. The same is true of art and entertainment; no longer an expression of one's creative faculties but a commodity, the qualitiative nature and distribution of which is determined by the market system.

However, I feel that the SWP has made mistakes in that they did not provide a form of alternative employment and in doing so have deprived these women of the means by which they earn an income. I feel there should also have been greater interaction with the workers and community in making the decision.

[rebelworker]

Besides, sex work, of all kinds, from stripping live, on the internet, to making movies, working in a massage parlour to old fashion prostitution, are some of the oldest prefessions that offere women with no skills steady work. It is easy to get into and often pays better than other low skill jobs.

Many of my close frineds have done sex work, they need to organise to improve the often bad conditions.

Moralising will not make sex work go away, they say its the oldest profesion for a reason. Mabey after a revolution the most exploitive forms of it will go awat, mabey, but to not take a position in support of workes organising (remember not all sex workers are women) is just either bible bashing, or ignorance.

I recomend the film "live nude women unite". Its about women at a San Fransico strip club unionizing. Mabey it will de mistify the whole thing for some of you.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by rebelworker+--> (rebelworker)Besides, sex work, of all kinds, from stripping live, on the internet, to making movies, working in a massage parlour to old fashion prostitution, are some of the oldest prefessions that offere women with no skills steady work. It is easy to get into and often pays better than other low skill jobs.[/b]

For some reason, that paragraph really reminded me of the opening scene of Reservoir Dogs.

Waitressing is the number one occupation for female non-college graduates in this country. It's the one jab basically any woman can get, and make a living on. The reason is because of tips. -- Mr. White.

I imagine sex work is also pretty high up on that list of occupations "for female non-college graduates". You can, after all, make a living stripping. The reasons not because of tips, of course; though I suppose the money placed in woman's g-string goes a long way towards covering the rent.

But, basically, there's not a tremendous difference between sex work and waitressing.

Both professions require the worker to provide a service in a manner that leaves the customer pleased. In fact, success in either of these professions primarily relies on being able to do this on a consistent basis. If a prostitute can't make someone cum, or a waitress can't keep a table happy, they won't be doing their respective jobs for that long.

In both professions you have to deal with drunken arseholes. In both professions the work is physically draining. I could go on with the similarities, but I think I've made my point -- that there's not a great deal of difference between the two professions.

Of course, current societal morals suggest that there is a difference between the two professions.

Running round like a twat to try and make someone's dining experience feel special, that's acceptable. A fake smile whilst pretending to be interested in someone's life is, well, labour. A fake orgasm whilst being fucked -- that's something else. If you consider that to be labour, "then you're totally lost as a human being."

There's no objective and logical argument for viewing sex in such a special light. After all, it's no more peculiar to pay for your old boy to be sucked than it is to pay for your dinner to be made . But, still, morality clouds logic; and sex work becomes all kinds of things.

From "the worst form of wage labour", to the Devil's work.

Really, though, there's not a tremendous difference between the moralism of the left and the moralism of the right. It's more of a stick vs. carrot debate than anything else -- not a fundamental difference regarding the conception of the profession.

There is, however, a fundamental difference regarding the conception of the profession when we compare the communist position on the subject, and the moralist position on the subject. It's just rather sad when a union bureaucracy is closer to that position than self-proclaimed communists.

I suppose, though, it does show that unions remain closer to the class movement than most left sects.


Originally posted by Red [email protected]
Should we have milk producing, lactating human female "workers" that can provide their product for the marketplace?

"We" already have that. Their called wet nurses.


bobkindles
However, I feel that the SWP has made mistakes in that they did not provide a form of alternative employment...

Philanthropy is simply not what communism is about.

Communists are not people who want to help the working poor better themselves. We are the working poor who want to control our own destinies. That's a simple distinction, and one worth remembering.

[LSD]

Do you really consider sex to be labour?

If you get paid for it, yes. Otherwise, no.

But then that's true for a whole bunch of capitalist occupations.

Talking on the telephone isn't usually considered work, but when one gets paid for it (telemarketing) it is; the same goes for actors and advertising artists and cooks and writers and all sorts of service workers.

Are you suggesting that waiters are somehow "not normal"?

Look, work isn't defined by the action alone, it's defined by the action plus context.

If you give a massage to your partner, you probably won't consider it work; but when a massage therapist does the same thing, she does. Why? Because she's only doing it out of economic nescessity.

Well, the same goes for prostitutes. When they have sex in their private lives it's not work, but when they're doing it as a job, it is.

There's nothing "wrong" or "unnatural" about that, it's just the way that capitalism works. Obviously our aim is to change that, but in the mean time there's nothing to be accomplished in calling waiters or cooks "pathetic".

(and isn't it interesting that no one's doing that? That the only service industry being attacked here is the sex one?Kinda suggests that there's more going on here than a strict Marxian analysis. Maybe a little something called morality...?)


Sex work would never be chosen as an occupation and is the worst form of wage labour.

Actually sex work is chosen all the time as an occupation, if it weren't there wouldn't be any sex workers out there.

If your point is that sex workers generally are only in the business to make money, well that's true for every job there is. Nobody wants to work for the bourgeoisie, but we all do it because the only alternative is starvation. That applies just as much to prostitutes as it does to anyone else.

And insofar as sex work being the "worst form of labour", I would really challenge you to defend that assertion. Obviously it's a rather denigrated occupation, but you don't think that has anything to do with contemporary sexual morality which teaches us that sex work is "wrong" and "humiliating"?

I'm not saying that most people want to become prostitutes, they don't. But most people don't want to work at all. Work under capitalism isn't something that people enjoy, it's something that they are economically compelled to do.

And if one is forced to choose between collecting trash and fucking, in sexually liberated society, I'd venture that most would choose the latter. Obviously some would still choose the former which is why capitalism will never run out of trash collectors; but free of all its cultural baggage, prostitution truly is a job just like any other.

And keeping prostitution illegal, harrasing sex workers or their places of employment, calling them names, and demeaning their occupation doesn't help them, it just pushes them even further into the margins of society.

Which is why, again, we need to show sex workers the same solidarity we show any other worker and promote progressive working class solutions to their (many) problems, starting with broad unionization.

It's also worth noting that a lot of the more exploited prostitutes are such largely because moralistic laws have forced them into the black market of society. As long as drugs remain illegal and prostitution remains illegal, the only people that these women (and men) will have to go to are criminals and gangsters.

The only way to change that is to empower them to control their own lives, something that can't happen as long as they are held down by the "morally righteous" and their naive stooges.


Sex is primarily suppossed to be an expression of a bond we feel with someone else

Sex isn't "supposed" to be anything, "primarily" or otherwise. It's just an activity, like any other. It may mean something particularly "special" to you, but that doesn't mean that there's anything "wrong" with thinking of it as just another job.


But when sexual activity can be traded as a commodity it shows that Capitalism has pervaded all aspects of life

Well, capitalism has pervaded all aspects of life. Turning a blind eye to that fact doesn't make it any less true, and neither does punnishing strippers or prostitutes because their existence reminds you of the pervasiveness of capitalism.

And, honestly, do you really think that patriarchy comes out of strip clubs and brothels?

It's rather remarkable then, isn't it, that some of the most patriarchal people out there are the ones crusading for these places to be shut down.

Don't get caught up in the moralistic bullshit. You may not like what capitalism does to sexuality, but the choice here isn't between the "commodifcation" of sex and some type of hippy utopian "free love". It's between liberal sexuality and repression.

And the less open that sexuality becomes, the more that strip clubs and escort services are shut down or pushed out, the weaker women become.

There's a reason that the explosion of "selling sex" coincided directly with the women's movement. After all, if capitalism's pushing it, it means that people are discussing it. And the more that sex is openly discussed the better for everyone, especially women.

The alternative, of course, being rolling the clock back 50 years and pushing it all back into the bedroom where men really did have a free hand to do virtualy anything they wanted.

If something's in demand, capitalism dictates that someone's going to try and sell it. That isn't "good" per se, but it's unavoidable. Trying to "outlaw" sexually charged materials and occupations won't stop that effect, it will only strike a blow for conservatism in its constant war against the liberalization of sexuality.

[Guerrilla22]

what this really comes down to is support for workers no matter what their occupation and as LSD pointed out, many women choose the sex industry as a proffesion.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by bobkindles
This should not be treated as Social Moralism; Sex work would never be chosen as an occupation and is the worst form of wage labour.

This is exactly moralism.

I think LSD and AS have answered this well. Selling sex is in my opinion probably quite an alienating job, but this is more than partially to do with the morality that surrounds it. It is also made more difficult because it is illegal in many countries, and prostitutes are harassed by the police.

But this thread is about stripping. Apart from the social stigma, and a few leering punters (which a woman could equally get as a barmaid, or waitress), it doesn't seem like that bad a job to me.

My contribution to this thread is the three worst jobs that I have ever done, all of which I consider to be worse that stripping, 'the worst form of wage labour'.

In no particular order:
1) working on a production line killing chickens-pretty dehumanising, and I still smelt of blood for weeks after.
2)working on a production line in a yoghurt factory-The work was extremely repetitive, and the place was too noisy to think let alone talk. My girlfriend said I preformed the actions in my sleep.
3) Temporary job polishing the inside of paint bins in a car factory-The work was so physically demanding that we had to work in teams of two changing every five minutes. Using an industrial polisher is the most physical demanding job I have ever had.


This should not be treated as Social Moralism; Sex work would never be chosen as an occupation and is the worst form of wage labour.

May I suggest that this is not only moralism, but middle class moralism. The reason that many young working class women choosing work like stripping is precisely because they are aware of what the alternatives are, and think that it is preferable to working on a production line, or cleaning.

Devrim

[Red Tung]

There's no objective and logical argument for viewing sex in such a special light. After all, it's no more peculiar to pay for your old boy to be sucked than it is to pay for your dinner to be made . But, still, morality clouds logic; and sex work becomes all kinds of things.

Yes, but certain things like pride, self-motivation, compassion and desire for personal freedom is illogical if stripped of all human value judgements. Yes, human value judgements are in the ultimate analysis illogical, but are they worthless? Should we then revert back to a more primitive way of living and organize human society to more resemble something like an insect colony? Insects are quite literally perfect little Communists aren't they? Stripped of all illogical human value judgements preferring the social organization of a bee hive over the social organization of human society with all its "mushy" sentimentality like love, pride, self-identity and personal freedom is illogical. Fine, you try to organize the perfect Communist bee hive society. Good luck! :lol:

Humans like sentimentality because we evolved to have those traits instinctually preferred. Sentimentality bonds human beings so those that prefer being "mushy with emotion" survive from the group solidarity it brings against threats that no one single individual is likely to survive alone from. Why, do you think "cuddly" pet dogs and cats are highly popular and not "cuddly" pet scorpions and children like fluffy toy bears to sleep with, but fluffy toy tarantulas would probably scar them with nightmares for life! :lol:


"We" already have that. Their called wet nurses.

Why stop at wet nurses? Why not have blood nurses? Poor people all over the world survive by selling their blood and rumour has it that rich millionaires keep themselves young and healthy by refreshing their blood ever so often. Hell, if they're rich enough they can buy replacement organs when their old worn out parts die from too much decadent consumption and debauchery. How's that for a symbiotic biological relationship? When the rich "labour" their blood and organs too much and wear them out from too much alcohol, drugs, food and sex the "natural" division of labour for the "labouring" milk nurses, blood nurses and organ nurses can provide spare parts and fluid like you can with your car at a tune-up shop. :lol:

Of course the obvious solution to this problem of utilizing our cognitive abilities inherent in our human brains to come up with a substitute for harvesting material from another autonomous human body has never occurred to you, but it's not surprising as a significant number of people on the political left consider science and intellectualism in general to be "elitist". Fine, if you think technology and education to be "elitist" as compared to "natural" unskilled human labour why not have a return to cannibalism when the inevitable ecological collapse results from the current chaotic and unmanaged human population boom? Viewed in this way I'm rather indifferent because either way it goes we'll have a continuous supply of stupid cows to exploit the difference being at the present time the rich can buy the "personal services" (blood, organs, sex, milk...) of the poor and when the environmental collapse come w'll all have an equal opportunity to view each other as a protein rich meal. :lol:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Guerilla 22:


what this really comes down to is support for workers no matter what their occupation and as LSD pointed out, many women choose the sex industry as a proffesion

On that basis, you'd support concentration camp workers, or those employed by the KKK.

Why do we treat sexism differentely from racism? We'd close racist institutions down if we could, not matter who 'chose' to work there; why is this any different?

And this is a political issue, not a moralistic one.

It seems to me that you lot are moralising against the SWP, who are acting politically.

[metalero]

Rosa, I think that unionizing women working in strip clubs will improve their living standards, let alone it could bring some standards of treatment and even public health. In fact, I see it as a way of better regulation than just asking the state for banning or shuting down those places. And your comparisson is not adequate, strippers are not Sex Slaves, something I think we all agree must be fiercely fought.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Rosa Lichtenstein+March 14, 2007 08:03 am--> (Rosa Lichtenstein @ March 14, 2007 08:03 am) Guerilla 22:


what this really comes down to is support for workers no matter what their occupation and as LSD pointed out, many women choose the sex industry as a proffesion

On that basis, you'd support concentration camp workers, or those employed by the KKK.

[/b]
This is a superb example of the SWP's intellectual dishonesty. I can't really believe that you are equating strippers with concentration camp workers. I don't think this really needs any further comment.


Rosa Lichtenstein
It seems to me that you lot are moralising against the SWP, who are acting politically.

Yes, you are right here they are. They are playing at politics and pandering to the most socially conservative elements in the Islamic community.

On the point of the SWP in general, Tony Cliff who at least had a vague idea of what Marxism was about*, seemed more, and more uncomfortable with some of the shenanigans that the SWP got up to from the 80's onwards. He would be turning in his grave now.

Devrim

*'Neither Washington, nor Moscow' until a war actually started, then quickly abandon internationalism and go back to the tired old line of national defence; 'We have no choice but to support the Khomeini regime...it would be wrong to strike...socialists should not call for the disruption of military supplies...not support action which would lead to the collapse of the military effort.

[Forward Union]

I remember hearing about this.

But in all seriousness, Islamic groups have done far worse in the past, why focus on this incident?

:rolleyes:

[Vargha Poralli]

It is the conditions which force Women in to these jobs(stripping,prostitution etc) which needs to be abolished. Even if the jobs are officially abolished in the current society there will be a Black Market for it in which the Women are to be more exploited. In short we need a revolution.

I may agree with SWP's positions but I disagree with their proposed mean to end these types of Industry.

[Dominick]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 14, 2007 08:03 am
Guerilla 22:


what this really comes down to is support for workers no matter what their occupation and as LSD pointed out, many women choose the sex industry as a proffesion

On that basis, you'd support concentration camp workers, or those employed by the KKK.

Why do we treat sexism differentely from racism? We'd close racist institutions down if we could, not matter who 'chose' to work there; why is this any different?

And this is a political issue, not a moralistic one.

It seems to me that you lot are moralising against the SWP, who are acting politically.
On the whole, the female does not earn as much money as a male, however, one would not organise to shut down that workplace. Rather, the argument would be to organise to demand equality and establish an organisation within that workplace in order to gain further concessions.

Further, I am uncertain as to whether or not sexually-oriented jobs will exist in a society without the exploitation of capitalism, because of the sexual desires that exist in the human condition. Perhaps the view of the work will change; that is, the customer will no longer view the sex worker as "the other" and, therefore "less-than".

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

DEV:


This is a superb example of the SWP's intellectual dishonesty. I can't really believe that you are equating strippers with concentration camp workers. I don't think this really needs any further comment.

Well, I thiink you need to learn to read.

My comment was directed at a specific remark made by Guerilla 22, that we should support all workers no matter what, not that we should compare sex workers with Nazis, etc.

So, in fact your response is a typical example of knee-jerk sectariansim.

And, Dominick, I take your reply, but once more, we would not encourage all workers to unionise (or, perhaps, better, we would not support such unions whatever they did), but to leave that area of employment.

So, we would not support union action by, say, Protestant workers in N Ireland if it was directed against Catholics (say, to keep them out).

And not everything done by oppressed groups is in their own interests. Stripping encourages (and depends on) a backward view of women, so no matter who is in favour of it, or who enjoys it, or wants to do it, we should be against it.

Working in other demeaning jobs (like a chicken factory) does not encourage a backward view of women.

[Dominick]

I suppose my question would be whether or not it is viewed as backward by way of our current relations, or will it cease being a demeaning profession once there is a new basis for relations, since the expression of sexuality is not innately demeaning? And further, all jobs are inherently demeaning and exploitative, would it not cut against this if those in the sex industry were able to assert more control? Certainly, as a poster above has said, there should be an abolition of conditions which force people into the industry, but that should be the case for all professions. That is a crime of capitalism; the forcing of people to work to subsist. Workers power, regardless of profession, is something which I think should be endorsed.

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 14, 2007 08:03 am
Guerilla 22:


what this really comes down to is support for workers no matter what their occupation and as LSD pointed out, many women choose the sex industry as a proffesion

On that basis, you'd support concentration camp workers, or those employed by the KKK.

Why do we treat sexism differentely from racism? We'd close racist institutions down if we could, not matter who 'chose' to work there; why is this any different?

And this is a political issue, not a moralistic one.

It seems to me that you lot are moralising against the SWP, who are acting politically.
Yeah, I can't even begin to describe how absurd that argument is. Clearly there is a distinction between legitimate work and working for hate groups. Comparing strippers to the KKK and Nazis is just beyond ridiculous. The "if you support this, you support fascism," argument is routinely used by people on this board when they are unable to construct a reasonable argument.

Please explain to me how stripping equals sexism. I might remind you that there are male strippers as well.


And this is a political issue, not a moralistic one.

No, clearly the SWP is making it a moralistic issue by deciding not to support the workers actions of strippers based on their proffesion.

[LSD]

Stripping encourages (and depends on) a backward view of women

And that would be...?

As far as I can tell the only thing that stripping "encourages" is the exchange of money. And as far as "backwards views" are concerned, I would, again, remind you that the more "backwards" a society is, the less likely it is to tolerate strip clubs.

Men and women are going to objectify each other, that's how sexuality works. And disallowing public displays of that objectification only serves to regress sexual liberalization.

That's certainly what the Christian right's doing, and it's why they're working so hard to get these kinds of places shut down. It's somewhat disturbing, though, that self-proclaimed leftists are helping them to do that.

Look, Rosa, no one should be forced to become a stripper or a prostitute, but at the same time no one should be forced not to. And there is absolutely nothing "wrong", either politically or "morally", with sex work.

Sex is just a serious of repetitive physical motions, pleasurable ones to be sure, but physical acts all the same. Paying someone to have sex with you is no different from paying them to massage your back; and paying them to gyrate on stage is no different from paying them to sing.

From a Marxist perspective, there is absolutely nothing "especially" exploitive about being a stripper. It's just your typical tertiary service occupation, like a janitor or a flight attendant.

The only reason that people make such a fuss about it is that in Judeo-Christian morality, stripping constitutes a "sin" as does prostitution.

As revolutionaries, though, we're supposed to be above such petty superstition.


On that basis, you'd support concentration camp workers, or those employed by the KKK.

Concentration camp "workers" were not in fact workers, they were soldiers and members of the German armed forces. As to "those employed by the KKK", it really depends on how you mean.

Capitalist "employment" can get rather complex, but if you are including those who, for example, work at a print shop that makes KKK literature, you're damn right I'd still consider them workers.

Workers don't often have the luxury of chosing the most politically savoury of occupations. Sometimes that means working for a boss who takes racists as clients.

But if that's what some poor working man or woman has to do to stay alive and support their family, I don't begrudge them for it for a second. And I have absolutely no doubt on which side of the class line they stand.

I'm significantly less certain, however, when it comes to you or your comrades in the SWP.

Instead of standing with workers you've chosen to ally with petty bourgeois moralistists in a fundamentally anti-worker "clean up" drive.

You know as well as I do that strip clubs and brothels aren't going anywhere, these campaigns are just meant to push it all a little further under the rug so uptight middle class yuppies don't have to worry about their children being "exposed" to the real world.

All of which, of course, only serves to weaken sex workers' economic position and thereby allows their employers to further exploit them.

If you actually gave a damn about real working women. you'd support broad unionization in the sex industry and an end to police repression. Instead, you're applauding the SWP in its class treacherous abandonment of these workers.

How unfortunate... :(

[Red Tung]

But if that's what some poor working man or woman has to do to stay alive and support their family, I don't begrudge them for it for a second. And I have absolutely no doubt on which side of the class line they stand.

Of course not. A significant part of politics is pragmatism. As I said before, it's justifiable to support workers in any kind of "job" including sex workers. but it shouldn't be consider a permanent state of affairs, otherwise what's the point of the long term goal of human emancipation that Communists are so eager about?

There are some things that simply shouldn't be consider worthwhile pursuits for human beings that are fully emancipated. If not, would it be a truly liberated "Communist" society to have shoe shiners and rickshaw pullers and prostitutes when technological alternatives can be made like shoe shine machines, cars and sex dolls? Or maybe not, some people maybe too stupid to accomplish much with their life other than being a human sex doll for a paying client. Great, three cheers for "Communist" shoe shiners and "red"(head) human sex dolls :lol:

[LSD]

A communist society won't have "jobs" in the sense of working for a wage at all, so that's a non-issue; but if isomeone wants to go around having sex with people, or polishing their shoes for that matter, that's nobody's business but their own.

In the meantime, there is absolutely nothing "worse" about sex work as compared with any other occuapation. Indeed it's a whole lot safer and pays a lot better than a great many more "moral" career choices.

It's only bourgeois moralism that tells us that a prostitute is "lowering herself" while a flight attendant is not. Both are workers and both are exploited and neither should be ashamed of that.

We don't gain anything as a class if we buy into bourgeois distractions and alienations. We need stand by the working class, the entire working class, no matter what "traditional values" have to say about the service they preform.

As I've said before, a prostitute is just a massage therapist who works on a different part of the body. Anbd that's how we should treat them, like any other worker.

Anything else is class treason, period.

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 15, 2007 08:02 am
I really cannot summon up the will to argue with comrades who cannot see lap dancing as degrading of women, or who rely on gossip, rumour, inuendo and the lies of a sectarian rag to smear the SWP.
<_< What a great retort. I support all working women of the world, including exotic dancers. No one is any kind of position to judge their proffesion on moralistic grounds. I support all the men who work as exotic dancers also.

[Cheung Mo]

I think the fact that the "leftists" who are working with Islamists and anti-sex "feminists" are missing is that both the repression and the exploitation of women are two different sides of the same coin -- patriarchal oppression. This patriarchal oppression is rooted in (or at least justified by in much of the world) by the repressive moral hygiene of the ancient Hebrews and its use as a means of social control (under the guise of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam and during epochs and on peoples for which it is culturally and intellectually unsuitable, whether they realise it or not) by subsequent ruling classes, including a number of individuals, groups, and ideologies who either claim to identify with the political left or are lumped in with the political left by reactionaries, corporatists, and aristocrats seeking to discredit it.

The system of morality that in its modern manifestations dates back to the Ancient Hebrews is one that has been used as justification for racism, misogyny, homophobia, slavery (both wage and chattel), the unhealthy and poisonous mystification / repression / exploitation /commodification of sex in general and female sexuality in particular, and repression of intellectualism, rationalism, critical thinking, and the scientific method.

We&#39;ve had a fairly limited degree of sexual liberation, but with it there was great reaction, in large part because we are collectively trapped in a repressive, backwards, and unhealthy ethical framework (It is imprinted in everyone by virtue of our environment and at times our heritage.). There is no reason to believe that the capitalist classes have not had substantial influence in the way all of this has played out: They&#39;re thrilled that we&#39;ve seen just enough liberation that they now have two means of controlling the female&#39;s sex (by not only simultaneously exploiting and repressing it, but also by playing these two sides of the coin against one another (i.e. religious conservatives vs. Hollywood) and distracting women and men alike from striving to achieve true liberation) and manipulating hearts, brains, dicks, pussies, whatever else they feel that they control with the power of sex.

And so the way of addressing issues pertaining to strippers, escorts, prostitutes, and other sex workers is not to support their stigmatisation and side with puritans, tea-totallers, the misguided anti-sex feminists, and the wrong-headedly religious or to support their exploitation by pimps, by club owners, by porn producers, and by other selfish, ignorant assholes who run both the above and underground. Since liberating the people and working so that we collectively achieve a raising of consciousness is a longterm goal that will take generations of hard work, education, and propaganda, as well as a radical change in the current socioeconomic order (to socialism), we must strive instead to achieve a number of pragmatic goals in the short term. We must push the sex industry above ground so that there is some transparency. For it is vastly easier to protect sex workers from exploitation when we are able to know what&#39;s going. Secondly, we must organise sex workers and ensure that -- when working within the capitalist or state capitalist frameworks under which virtually all of us are currently governed -- they are allowed healthy working conditions, fair pay, benefits, and hours, and control of their job, their present, and their future. Third, we must tell them the truth so as to offer them peace of mind by destigmatising them to themselves and letting them absolve themselves of the guilt that has been implanted into them by reactionary ethical frameworks and those who hold to them.

And standing under banners of convenience with Islamists, with the Vatican (I&#39;m no comrade of Daniel Ortega&#39;s, that&#39;s for damn sure. I&#39;d have abstained in the Nicaraguan election.) and with "feminist" factions that do not grasp the dichotomy between exploitation and repression and how both are sides of soiled coin that stands in complete contradiction with the true goal that is liberation.

A further comment about both Islamists and Zionists to conclude this diatribe: They are not our friends...They are patches on the reactionary quilt that we must tear to shreads: If we allow this quilt to envelope us, we will be choked and we will be destroyed, just as we&#39;ve been in Iran, in Afghanistan and in Israel. We cannot be a vehicle to interests who still place their stock and their moral compass in reactionary Hebrew mythology or its successors and antecedents and who will thus destroy us whenever the armaments are in their barracks.

[Vanguard1917]

Instead of linking arms with the puritans (whether Islamic, Christian or secular) and helping them to drive sex work further underground, we need to be calling for the decriminalisation and the unionisation of the sex industry.

Here (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/654/lopez.htm) is an interview with Ana Lopes of the International Union of Sex Workers, and here (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/645/lopez.htm) is an article by her.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Who is linking arms with &#39;puritans&#39;?

Certainly not the SWP.

[JimFar]

Rosa wrote:


And not everything done by oppressed groups is in their own interests. Stripping encourages (and depends on) a backward view of women, so no matter who is in favour of it, or who enjoys it, or wants to do it, we should be against it.

Working in other demeaning jobs (like a chicken factory) does not encourage a backward view of women.

Well, do you favor the unionization of strippers (and for that matter, sex workers) or do you not?

As for as your remark comparing strippers with chicken factory workers, well the fact is while working in a chicken factory may not encourage a backward view of women, as a form of alienated labor, it&#39;s likely to foster in workers a narrow, constricted view of the world, that in its own way, may be just as backward. Read your Marx on the nature of alienation.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Jim Farr:


As for as your remark comparing strippers with chicken factory workers, well the fact is while working in a chicken factory may not encourage a backward view of women, as a form of alienated labor, it&#39;s likely to foster in workers a narrow, constricted view of the world, that in its own way, may be just as backward. Read your Marx on the nature of alienation.

You mistake the reason for my contrast; there is a world of difference between a job that actively re-inforces regressive gender stereotypes (and worse), from one that contingently affects the ideas workers might or might not form about themselves and others -- whatever Marx did or did not say.

As for the unionisation of sex workers; of course I favour it over them not being unionised.

But I prefer they were not sex workers to begin with so that this issue did not have to arise.

[JimFar]

Rosa wrote:


You mistake the reason for my contrast; there is a world of difference between a job that actively re-inforces regressive gender stereotypes (and worse), from one that contingently affects the ideas workers might or might not form about themselves and others -- whatever Marx did or did not say.

There are, alas, lots of jobs like that. Education, whether public or private, in capitalist societies tends to reinforce all sorts of regressive ideas concerning gender, race, and class. Nevertheless, we support the unionization of teachers and other workers in the education sector. Ditto for for workes in the mass media.



As for the unionisation of sex workers; of course I favour it over them not being unionised.

Glad to hear it. From some earlier posts, I had gotten the impression that you perhaps were not so supportive. I also got the impression that the British SWP wasn&#39;t supportive of that either. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Jim Farr:


There are, alas, lots of jobs like that. Education, whether public or private, in capitalist societies tends to reinforce all sorts of regressive ideas concerning gender, race, and class. Nevertheless, we support the unionization of teachers and other workers in the education sector. Ditto for works in the mass media.

Yes of course there are; but which ones engage the target of that stereotyping in its own exacerbation?


Glad to hear it. From some earlier posts, I had gotten the impression that you perhaps were not so supportive. I also got the impression that the British SWP wasn&#39;t supportive of that either. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

Recall, that unions are defensive organisations that at best re-negotiate the terms of their members&#39; exploitation. Better to end that exploitation.

The UK SWP more or less takes the same line, but not in the abstract.

For example; a generation ago in the UK we used to have something on TV called &#39;The Black and White Minstrels Show&#39; which among other things had white actors made up to look like caricatures of black men. It was brazenly racist and would never be allowed these days.

In this case, questions about unionisation would be irrelevant. These racist &#39;singers&#39; just had to be put out of their jobs. Sure, re-employed elsewhere, but that was of secondary concern.

On the left we have always been far more accommodating with sexism than we have with racism

We&#39;d never allow only, say, black women to strip, or white women made up to look like caricatures of black women, to strip. We would not argue for equality here, or union rights -- just termination of employment.

So, why do we put up with the systematic degradation of all women?

It seems to me no less pernicious.

We&#39;d never allow the systematic degradation of, say, all African Americans.

[YKTMX]

I did a long reply to this that got swallowed for some reason.

The point, to put it succintly, is that forms of sexual exploitation pre-date capitalism, so the notion that it&#39;s just one more form of expolitation is hazardous.

In fact, it seems clear that forms of sexual labour are expressions of patriarchy. This isn&#39;t "equal opportunity" employment, it&#39;s the systematic debasement and exploitation of one part of the species by the other.

And of course we support "union rights" for sexual workers. We would also support unionizing workplaces in the Far East that include children, but it doesn&#39;t mean we "approve" of child labour".

The notion that opposition to prostitution and sexual labour is "moralistic" doesn&#39;t stand up to scrutiny. It&#39;s no more "moralistic" than opposition to racist or sectarian employers or those who employ children.

[The Feral Underclass]

If that is the opinion of the SWP, it has changed considerably since I was a member.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Well, I have been in and around the SWP since the early 1980&#39;s and it seems the same to me (give or take a few changes of emphasis).

[Hit The North]

It would be amusing to see how the CPGB&#39;s obsessive hatred of the SWP leads them into supporting a mutli-national corporate slag like Spearmint Rhino rather than taking a principled stand against patriarchy and legalized pimping... Amusing if it wasn&#39;t so hilarious.

Cheung Mo:


I think the fact that the "leftists" who are working with Islamists and anti-sex "feminists" are missing ...

The SWP does not work with "Islamists" (i.e. people who promote Islam as the organizing principle of the political state) and to be against the commodification of female sexuality does not make feminists necessarily anti-sex.

V1917:

Instead of linking arms with the puritans (whether Islamic, Christian or secular) and helping them to drive sex work further underground

It sounds like you think the sex industry is founded on some sort of liberation, rather than what it is: founded on alienation. I tell you comrade, after the revolution we won&#39;t be getting our kicks by skulking off to dodgy lap-dancing clubs, we&#39;ll be too busy participating in the public orgies which have become the social centre-piece of our truly liberated working class communes.

Well, I can hope.

Guerilla22:


I support all working women of the world, including exotic dancers. No one is any kind of position to judge their proffesion on moralistic grounds. I support all the men who work as exotic dancers also.


Yes, I get it: you support workers whatever. So I look forward to your principled and constructive opposition to the arms industry. :rolleyes:

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 18, 2007 07:59 pm
Well, I have be in and around the SWP since the early 1980&#39;s and it seems the same to me (give or take a few changes of emphasis).
Yeah, sorry, I misunderstood. I thought the opposite was being argued.

Which branch were you a member of back in the day of branches? I was in Sheffield Hillsborough Branch?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 20, 2007 12:36 am
It sounds like you think the sex industry is founded on some sort of liberation, rather than what it is: founded on alienation.
How is the sex industry "founded" on alienation? What does that even mean?


I tell you comrade, after the revolution we won&#39;t be getting our kicks by skulking off to dodgy lap-dancing clubs,

What happens if a group of women wish to start a lap dancing club for men?

[Hit The North]

How is the sex industry "founded" on alienation? What does that even mean?

Read some Marx.


What happens if a group of women wish to start a lap dancing club for men?

Is this the quality of your sexual fantasy? I pity you.

Nevertheless, as long as it&#39;s voluntary and they&#39;re not charging for their services, it would be permissible.

Not that such a situation is remotely comparable to that of Spearmint Rhino or any other part of the capitalist sex industry.

And it may have escaped your notice, but it&#39;s not women who decide to set up lap dancing clubs, it&#39;s men. Maybe you&#39;d like to contemplate the implications of that fact.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 20, 2007 12:55 am

How is the sex industry "founded" on alienation? What does that even mean?

Read some Marx
I&#39;m quite confident that Marx never asserted that the sex industry was "founded" in alienation.

Work is not "founded" in alienation; alienation is the economic separation of the worker under capitalism from the products of their labour. Alienation is a consequence of working not the other way around.



What happens if a group of women wish to start a lap dancing club for men?

Is this the quality of your sexual fantasy? I pity you.

Being gay it&#39;s not at all the quality of my sexual fantasies, but you have certainly displayed your social conservatism for all to witness.


Nevertheless, as long as it&#39;s voluntary and they&#39;re not charging for their services, it would be permissible.

Well, you wouldn&#39;t be able to do anything about it so your opinion is negligible.


Not that such a situation is remotely comparable to that of Spearmint Rhino or any other part of the capitalist sex industry.

Or of any capitalist industry.

I don&#39;t quite understand why Spearmint Rhino is more of an exception than producing televisions in a factory?

Obviously your social conservatism is a major factor in your ranting against the sex industry, but the reality of this is that no business is more reproachable than the other, regardless of your personal opinions about sex or what it is or should be used for.

Stripping and prostitution is as legitimate a working class profession as working in a factory or driving a train of coal. It is not more special or important.


And it may have escaped your notice, but it&#39;s not women who decide to set up lap dancing clubs, it&#39;s men.

But it is women who decide to work in them?

And for your information there are many dance clubs and brothels started and owned by women.


Maybe you&#39;d like to contemplate the implications of that fact.

Yes, I&#39;ll contemplate it but I&#39;m not sure what good it will do?

Men using women&#39;s sex to generate profit is deplorable, but it really has nothing to do with whether their men or women; it wouldn&#39;t be any better if Spearmint Rhino was owned by a woman, would it?

This isn&#39;t a gender issue, it&#39;s a class issue.

[Hit The North]

TAT:

Men using women&#39;s sex to generate profit is deplorable...

Exactly. Which is why opposition to businesses like Spearmint Rhino is justified.


it wouldn&#39;t be any better if Spearmint Rhino was owned by a woman, would it?

No, because exploitation is not a gender issue. Nevertheless, if you think gender isn&#39;t an issue in the sex industry (where men are the main consumers and women are the main workers) then you don&#39;t understand it, or it&#39;s relation to the wider culture.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by YKTMX+--> (YKTMX)I did a long reply to this that got swallowed for some reason.

The point, to put it succintly, is that forms of sexual exploitation pre-date capitalism, so the notion that it&#39;s just one more form of expolitation is hazardous.[/b]

That&#39;s not the most accurate representation of the point you made in the post of yours that was lost.

In that post, the point was more like this: sex work, especially prostitution, pre-dates capitalism. In that sense then, it is very much a relic of pre-capitalist times. And because of this history, it can be described as a thoroughly patriarchal part of the economy. That is, the human relations involved bear the marks of patriarchy.

Of course, there&#39;s something slightly odd about this position. What&#39;s odd is both your historical analysis and your definition of what patriarchy constitutes.

To start with, viewing the sex industry as something which pre-dates capitalism is plain wrong. Playboy, Hustler, Spearmint Rhino, etc., are very much products of the 20th century -- that is, the capitalist era.

And even prostitution -- "the worlds oldest profession" -- shouldn&#39;t be viewed with the simplistic it came before capitalism and therefore it&#39;s pre-capitalist mantra. Because even in pre-capitalist societies, prostitution was very much one of those trades that falls into the mercantilist framework.

That is, prostitutes were found in the developing cities where pre-capitalist relations were starting to fray. Where the old class dynamic of lord and serf, aristocrat and slave, were being replaced with a newer dynamic which involved people selling their labour.

Basically, you&#39;d find prostitutes in the places where the artisan was replacing the servant -- and not some rural hellhole. (After all, there&#39;s a reason it&#39;s called street walking and not dirt walking.)

And given all this, prostitution should be seen as one of trades that fundamentally challenged the social relations that compromised pre-capitalist societies. It&#39;s in the same league as banking, shipping, and so on.

And that leads onto the next thing I mentioned, your definition of patriarchy.

Patriarchy, as I&#39;m sure we can all agree, is a social relationship where men are empowered, primarily financially, over women. That is, it is a situation where a woman, through no choice of her own, is completely dependent on a man. Basically, she&#39;s his slave.

And the most notable example of patriarchy, is the pre-capitalist family unit. Where the father or husband had complete economic and social control over his wife or daughter. She had no economic or social power; and no chance of actually getting any economic or social power.

Yet, that doesn&#39;t quite describe the situation of prostitutes. Does it?

Prostitutes, after all, weren&#39;t dependent on their husbands or fathers. Indeed, for many centuries, prostitution was one of the few professions a woman could do which would give her the economic power to not be dependent. Basically, a prostitute could support herself.

So describing prostitution as an "expression of patriarchy" doesn&#39;t seem that accurate.

As I said, for many centuries it was one of the few professions a woman could pursue that would lead them away from patriarchal relations. That&#39;s changed now, of course. The woman&#39;s movement, and women, have made great strides forward; and there are numerous different jobs a woman can have which will lead to her being economically independent.

But, just because that is now the case, shouldn&#39;t mean that we forget prostitutions role in the politics of sex. And it certainly shouldn&#39;t mean that we should try to re-brand it as something it isn&#39;t. Namely, an "expression of patriarchy".

Now, been as the central logic of your argument stands on such shaky ground, I&#39;ll ask again what I asked at the beginning of this thread, how can you justify the SWP&#39;s position? Without relying on some form of moral argument, of course.


Originally posted by [email protected]
And of course we support "union rights" for sexual workers. We would also support unionizing workplaces in the Far East that include children, but it doesn&#39;t mean we "approve" of child labour".

That&#39;s a fallacious argument.

Sure, you can support the unionisation of workplaces which utilise child labour without actually supporting child labour. I don&#39;t think anyone would dispute that. What&#39;s in question here, is how you can support the unionisation of a workplace that you&#39;re actively trying to shut down?

You see, it&#39;s not a specific aspect of the workplace you don&#39;t "approve of" -- it&#39;s the workplace itself. You&#39;re not saying we don&#39;t like the fact that there isn&#39;t enough security in strip clubs and by supporting unionisation we&#39;re in no way endorsing that. And you&#39;re not saying we support the unionisation of sex workers but that doesn&#39;t mean we approve of the fact that many female sex workers have been sexually abused at some point in their life.

No, you&#39;re saying we fundamentally don&#39;t agree with the work itself. We want to see it ended. We want to see strip clubs closed immediately. And that&#39;s quite a difference.


Rosa
Recall, that unions are defensive organisations that at best re-negotiate the terms of their members&#39; exploitation. Better to end that exploitation. [...] We would not argue for equality here, or union rights -- just termination of employment.

You do like to argue that peoples employment should be terminated, don&#39;t you? And, to be honest, I find that it&#39;s quite a strange thing for a communist to argue in favour of.

Anyway, the above comment reminded me of the thread on the piece Abolish Resaurants. The authors point was not that all restaurants should close immediately, but that the social relations found in a restaurant, and wider society, need to be abolished.

So, yes, it is "Better to end that exploitation."

But you don&#39;t "end that exploitation" by getting the place shut down -- well, not if you see strip clubs in a rational Marxist sense. You start "to end that exploitation" by building towards a worker&#39;s revolution. An end to all exploitation.

Not just exploitation in a particular sphere of the economy.

After all, if the strip club had closed, the women employed there would have just found new jobs. And those jobs would have had the same exploitative worker-boss dynamic. Which would have made the closing of the strip clubs a step sideways, at best.

That&#39;s unless strip clubs are somehow special. But two pages on, we still haven&#39;t had a decent argument in favour of this proposition.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 20, 2007 01:51 am
TAT:

Men using women&#39;s sex to generate profit is deplorable...

Exactly. Which is why opposition to businesses like Spearmint Rhino is justified.
Yes, in the context of wider class struggle; that sex workers should take control of that industry. Specifically struggling against Spearmint Rhino makes no sense at all.

I don&#39;t see why we have to make a special exception for Spearmint Rhino, unless of course you have moral or conservative views towards sex.




it wouldn&#39;t be any better if Spearmint Rhino was owned by a woman, would it?

No, because exploitation is not a gender issue.

I&#39;m glad that you agree with me.


Nevertheless, if you think gender isn&#39;t an issue in the sex industry (where men are the main consumers and women are the main workers) then you don&#39;t understand it, or it&#39;s relation to the wider culture.

I&#39;ve never suggested to the contrary, but we live in a heterocentric patriarchal society so it is no surprise that men exploit women in this way.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

TAT; I was a member in many places as I moved around, but mostly in Leeds Central.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

AS:


You do like to argue that peoples employment should be terminated, don&#39;t you? And, to be honest, I find that it&#39;s quite a strange thing for a communist to argue in favour of.

This sounds fine in the abstract, but it won&#39;t work in all cases; I tried to give examples -- you need to say what is wrong with terminating employment in those cases.


But you don&#39;t "end that exploitation" by getting the place shut down -- well, not if you see strip clubs in a rational Marxist sense. You start "to end that exploitation" by building towards a worker&#39;s revolution. An end to all exploitation.

Once more, this sounds great in the abstract, but in the cases I gave, closing such places down is part of the fight to end exploitation in general.

Or do you imagine that we go from full-blooded capitalism to perfect socialism overnight?


After all, if the strip club had closed, the women employed there would have just found new jobs. And those jobs would have had the same exploitative worker-boss dynamic. Which would have made the closing of the strip clubs a step sideways, at best.

That&#39;s unless strip clubs are somehow special. But two pages on, we still haven&#39;t had a decent argument in favour of this proposition.

You need to read my other comments posted here to see the difference between exploitation under capitalism with the promotion of stereotypes that worsen the over-all condition of women.

And, given your argument, you would be happy to allow the &#39;Black and White Minstrels&#39; to sing merrily away on TV.

You just would not think to use your arguments to protect the jobs of workers who were promoting racist sterotypes, but you are quite happy to argue for those who are promoting sexist ones.

As I said, we have been far too accommodating with sexism on the left; we&#39;d never allow such things to be done on a racist basis.

Why the double standard?

Two pages on, and you still have not confronted this hole in your entire &#39;argument&#39;.

[Cheung Mo]

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 19, 2007 11:36 pm
It would be amusing to see how the CPGB&#39;s obsessive hatred of the SWP leads them into supporting a mutli-national corporate slag like Spearmint Rhino rather than taking a principled stand against patriarchy and legalized pimping... Amusing if it wasn&#39;t so hilarious.

Cheung Mo:


I think the fact that the "leftists" who are working with Islamists and anti-sex "feminists" are missing ...

The SWP does not work with "Islamists" (i.e. people who promote Islam as the organizing principle of the political state) and to be against the commodification of female sexuality does not make feminists necessarily anti-sex.

V1917:

Instead of linking arms with the puritans (whether Islamic, Christian or secular) and helping them to drive sex work further underground

It sounds like you think the sex industry is founded on some sort of liberation, rather than what it is: founded on alienation. I tell you comrade, after the revolution we won&#39;t be getting our kicks by skulking off to dodgy lap-dancing clubs, we&#39;ll be too busy participating in the public orgies which have become the social centre-piece of our truly liberated working class communes.

Well, I can hope.

Guerilla22:


I support all working women of the world, including exotic dancers. No one is any kind of position to judge their proffesion on moralistic grounds. I support all the men who work as exotic dancers also.


Yes, I get it: you support workers whatever. So I look forward to your principled and constructive opposition to the arms industry. :rolleyes:
As long as the exploitation-repression paradigm regarding sex remains prevalent, any attempts at limiting rights to consensual sexual expression among adults will pander to this dynamic. Thus, our focus should be on organising sex workers and creating a climate of enlightened liberation around them. Make them masters of their own destinies rather than chattel to a pimp or to legal business interests seeking to exploit them. Regardless of whether or not a liberated society will have people to sell or barter sex (ideally, attitudes towards sexuality will be so healthy that it won&#39;t need to be necessary) or in what context sexual relationships and sexual activity will occur following a revolution, repression will foster unhealthy attitudes in the current political and social climate.

[Guerrilla22]

Yes, I get it: you support workers whatever. So I look forward to your principled and constructive opposition to the arms industry.

This is a non-sensical argument. You cannot put stripping in the same category as the arms industry, or people working for the kkk or the third reich or whatever ridiculous comparison you want to make. That&#39;s wht Rosa&#39;s argument was so terrible. Now you&#39;re doing the exact same thing.


No, because exploitation is not a gender issuue.

In that case, how exactly is stripping more exploitive than any other industry, please enlighten us.

[apathy maybe]

Not sure if someone has brought this point up or not. Maybe I did and it got wiped from one of the roll backs. Whatever.

What about male prostitutes and strippers and porn stars and so on? Are they in the same position as female (whatever)? If not, why not?

[YKTMX]

To start with, viewing the sex industry as something which pre-dates capitalism is plain wrong. Playboy, Hustler, Spearmint Rhino, etc., are very much products of the 20th century -- that is, the capitalist era.

I never claimed the "sex industry" pre-dates capitalism, in fact I never mentioned the "sex industry" in either of my posts&#33;

I mentioned forms of "sexual exploitation", which is a different thing. The "sex industry", as you call it is, in a sense, sexual exploitation of the bourgeois epoch.


Because even in pre-capitalist societies, prostitution was very much one of those trades that falls into the mercantilist framework.

That&#39;s true and it merely bolsters my point. It&#39;s a pre-capitalist form of labour, street prostitutes are, in a sense, "self-employed".



Basically, you&#39;d find prostitutes in the places where the artisan was replacing the servant -- and not some rural hellhole. (After all, there&#39;s a reason it&#39;s called street walking and not dirt walking.)

I think you&#39;re maybe over complicating it a bit here. The reason prostitutes work in cities is because there&#39;s more people there and it&#39;s easier to be inconspicuous. You wouldn&#39;t get much work if you wandered from isolated village to isolated village. Indeed, there&#39;s an interesting debate to be had about the role of the City in the proliferation of prostitution.



Patriarchy, as I&#39;m sure we can all agree, is a social relationship where men are empowered, primarily financially, over women. That is, it is a situation where a woman, through no choice of her own, is completely dependent on a man.

No, that&#39;s mistaking the symptom for the illness. The social and historical structure of patriarchy produces social relationships which then stabilize and reinforce that structure.

So, a woman who leaves her husband, shaves her head, disowns her children and gets a job on the board of a major Investment bank would still be a victim of patriarchy.

So it is clear that a woman who leaves the patriarchy of the traditional family in order to sell herself to men on the street is no sense "overcoming" patriarchy.



The woman&#39;s movement, and women, have made great strides forward; and there are numerous different jobs a woman can have which will lead to her being economically independent.

Viewing "economic independence" as a route away from patriarchy is a rather trite liberal view, I think. It&#39;s like saying black people can overcome racism if they get the vote and the government introduces affirmative action programmes. I believe you affirmed a position similar to this when we discussed the immigration protests in America, stating your belief that if only immigrants were formally amalgamated into American capitalism, their situation would improve markedly, despite evidence to the contrary - particularly the experience of black after pinnacle of the civil rights movement.

Patriarchy, like racism, is not only an economic and political structure, those these aspects are important, it&#39;s a social structure, and as such can&#39;t be overcome by individual action or government decree.



What&#39;s in question here, is how you can support the unionisation of a workplace that you&#39;re actively trying to shut down?


Yet you can support the unionization of people you&#39;re trying to have removed from a workplace (i.e children)?

I don&#39;t see how that follows.

Your objection seems more numerical than anything else. Imagine a factory in a area of China were the only fit labourers where people under 16 (not a difficult thing to imagine), you&#39;d support the unionization of those workers and the termination of the enterprise they work in, wouldn&#39;t you?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

G22:


This is a non-sensical argument. You cannot put stripping in the same category as the arms industry, or people working for the kkk or the third reich or whatever ridiculous comparison you want to make. That&#39;s wht Rosa&#39;s argument was so terrible. Now you&#39;re doing the exact same thing.

But you said you support all workers; you did not discriminate.

That is why I posed those questions to you.

If you support all workers, and defend their jobs, you must also support concentration camp and KKK employees, civilian hangmen/women, prison guards, and the like.

It&#39;s no good you complaining about my argument if it exposes your careless hyperbole.

For that it what it was intended to do.

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 21, 2007 03:15 am
G22:


This is a non-sensical argument. You cannot put stripping in the same category as the arms industry, or people working for the kkk or the third reich or whatever ridiculous comparison you want to make. That&#39;s wht Rosa&#39;s argument was so terrible. Now you&#39;re doing the exact same thing.

But you said you support all workers; you did not discriminate.

That is why I posed those questions to you.

If you support all workers, and defend their jobs, you must also support concentration camp and KKK employees, civilian hangmen/women, prison guards, and the like.

It&#39;s no good you complaining about my argument if it exposes your careless hyperbole.

For that it what it was intended to do.
No, because clearly I meant all legitimate jobs, which stripping is. Instead of reasoning why the SWP shouldn&#39;t support these exotic dancers in unionizing, you instead choose to argue semantics. Now please address why the sWP should not support these women&#39;s efforts to uninize.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

G22:


No, because clearly I meant all legitimate jobs, which stripping is. Instead of reasoning why the SWP shouldn&#39;t support these exotic dancers in unionizing, you instead choose to argue semantics. Now please address why the sWP should not support these women&#39;s efforts to uninize.

And how are you going to define &#39;legitimate&#39; without introducing all the above political controversies, which you have conveniently ignored?

As to the &#39;legitimacy&#39; of strip clubs, why are you so indulgent of sexism, but intolerant of racism? Is it because you are not a woman, and are blind to it?

With regard to the SWP, you need to read the posts here a little more carefully; YKTMX and I have handled this one

But, I wonder if your support for strip clubs is encouraging you to engage in acts that are affecting your eyesight?&#33;? :o

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 21, 2007 05:57 pm
G22:


No, because clearly I meant all legitimate jobs, which stripping is. Instead of reasoning why the SWP shouldn&#39;t support these exotic dancers in unionizing, you instead choose to argue semantics. Now please address why the sWP should not support these women&#39;s efforts to uninize.

And how are you going to define &#39;legitimate&#39; without introducing all the above political controversies, which you have conveniently ignored?

As to the &#39;legitimacy&#39; of strip clubs, why are you so indulgent of sexism, but intolerant of racism? Is it because you are not a woman, and are blind to it?

With regard to the SWP, you need to read the posts here a little more carefully; YKTMX and I have handled this one

But, I wonder if your support for strip clubs is encouraging you to engage in acts that are affecting your eyesight?&#33;? :o
How exactly does stripping promote sexism? Are there not male strippers too? should we shut down places that have male strippers as well, or soley places that offer female strippers? As to the SWP question, no you really haven&#39;t answered the question, neither has YKTMX, all you&#39;ve done is compare strippers to nazis and go on about how I&#39;m blind to sexism, ect.

So why don&#39;t you head back over to the philosophy forums where you are actually able to argue.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

G22:


How exactly does stripping promote sexism?

We have been through this already. How many more times do you need this obvious point explaining to you?

Next you will be asking about the colour of grass.

And, I&#39;d like you to find where I or YKTMX have compared strippers to Nazis.

[YKTMX]

And, I&#39;d like you to find where I or YKTMX have compared strippers to Nazis.

Come on, Rosa , surely you remember the 54th Stripper Fußtruppen&#39;s crucial role during the German advance on Paris.

:lol:

[Guerrilla22]

here:

On that basis, you&#39;d support concentration camp workers, or those employed by the KKK.

Why do we treat sexism differentely from racism? We&#39;d close racist institutions down if we could, not matter who &#39;chose&#39; to work there; why is this any different?

In other words, you wouldn&#39;t support nazis or people working for the KKK, so why would you support strippers? That is basically what you were saying, don&#39;t try to dance around it.

And no, you keep dodging the questions I pose to you, perhaps it is because you can&#39;t answer. You claim you have already responded, please point it out to me, my vision is not what i used to be bwecause of chronic masturbating. :(

[YKTMX]

In other words, you wouldn&#39;t support nazis or people working for the KKK, so why would you support strippers?

Rosa has already responded to this, so I&#39;ll give it a try.

It was you who said that you support "all working women of the world, including exotic dancers."

Rosa then pointed out that, amongst this working class, "all" of which you said you support, there includes prison guards, men of the state, people who make weapons, and, historically, the hired guns of Fascism.

She then asked, given that you said you would, not her, would you "support" the rights of these workers.

She never compared strippers to "Nazis" as you put it, she asked a legitimate question about your own logic. You have failed to answer that question, whereas we have answered yours, and others like it, repeatedly.

Understand?

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 06:40 pm

In other words, you wouldn&#39;t support nazis or people working for the KKK, so why would you support strippers?

Rosa has already responded to this, so I&#39;ll give it a try.

It was you who said that you support "all working women of the world, including exotic dancers."

Rosa then pointed out that, amongst this working class, "all" of which you said you support, there includes prison guards, men of the state, people who make weapons, and, historically, the hired guns of Fascism.

She then asked, given that you said you would, not her, would you "support" the rights of these workers.

She never compared strippers to "Nazis" as you put it, she asked a legitimate question about your own logic. You have failed to answer that question, whereas we have answered yours, and others like it, repeatedly.

Understand?
No that wasn&#39;t was she was saying. She was comparing strippers to nazis and I&#39;m not the only one who interpeted what she sais that way.

Maybe I should have been more specific. At anyrate her argument was irrelevant given the issue of whether or not strippers trying orgaize should be supported by the SWP or should the SWP side with a bourgeois group, who was basing their decision on moral grounds, simply for the politcal gain of the SWP. Instead she decided to attack semantics. Understand?

[YKTMX]

She was comparing strippers to nazis and I&#39;m not the only one who interpreted what she sais that way.

No, she wasn&#39;t. But obviously you&#39;ve said that she did and now, despite it being stupid and false, you&#39;re committed to defending that position no matter what the logical implications - and that&#39;s your prerogative.


Instead she decided to attack semantics. Understand?

No, because it&#39;s a false dilemma.

When have me or Rosa ever said we don&#39;t want see strippers join or set up a trade union? Where?

Where has the SWP suggested this, in fact? Nowhere.

What you&#39;ve done is taken two separate events (the supposed trade union activity of the strippers and the SWP&#39;s opposition to the sexual exploitation of the workers) and then created a fiction out of them, a fiction that appeals to your prejudices about the Socialist Workers&#39; Party.

If anyone on here was serious, the original post by AS would have been dismissed as sectarian agit-prop. Instead, people saw the "SWP" and the "crazy Muslims" at it again and couldn&#39;t help themselves.

It&#39;s like when a you show a kitten a ball of string, it can&#39;t help but play with it, it&#39;s instinct.

It&#39;s also juvenile and sectarian, but that&#39;s obvious.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

G22:


In other words, you wouldn&#39;t support nazis or people working for the KKK, so why would you support strippers? That is basically what you were saying, don&#39;t try to dance around it.

I see you are getting desperate -- either that or you have lost the ability to think clearly.

YKTMX has once more explained things to you.

If you still do not understand, I suggest you get as job as a union organiser for the next re-make of the &#39;Black and White Minstrels&#39;:

http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/B/htmlB/...lackandwhim.htm (http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/B/htmlB/blackandwhim/blackandwhim.htm)


No that wasn&#39;t was she was saying. She was comparing strippers to nazis and I&#39;m not the only one who interpeted what she sais that way.

Translated, this means that you are not the only idiot here.

I suppose you think there is safety in numbers.

You could even set up your own idiot&#39;s union.

It&#39;s as legit a job as stripping, I reckon. And you seem a natural.


Maybe I should have been more specific. At anyrate her argument was irrelevant given the issue of whether or not strippers trying orgaize should be supported by the SWP or should the SWP side with a bourgeois group, who was basing their decision on moral grounds, simply for the politcal gain of the SWP. Instead she decided to attack semantics. Understand?

You might like to try to wriggle out of your earlier gaff by labelling it &#39;semantics&#39;, but if you are happy to base your politics on a sloppy use of words, I suugest you stop moaning when this is pointed out to you, and learn to be more precise.

While you require 100% precision from me and YKTMX (which I think we have managed to achieve), you are happy with 1% from yourself.

[Guerrilla22]

When have me or Rosa ever said we don&#39;t want see strippers join or set up a trade union? Where?

Where has the SWP suggested this, in fact? Nowhere.

Um... you seem to have a short memory. Here Rosa says:


Why do we treat sexism differentely from racism? We&#39;d close racist institutions down if we could, not matter who &#39;chose&#39; to work there; why is this any different?

Is she not saying strip clubs should be closed down rather than have the workers unionize? Whoops&#33; Got you there.

and:

Translated, this means that you are not the only idiot here.

I suppose you think there is safety in numbers.

You could even set up your own idiot&#39;s union.

It&#39;s as legit a job as stripping, I reckon. And you seem a natural.

If you claim that Amusing Scrotum&#39;s post was false than present some evidence to prove otherwise.

So in the ned you end up agreeing with me, communist organizations should encourage workers in the sex industry, such as strippers to unionize rather than to join movements working to shut them down. How ironic. It seems Rosa has resorted to flaming to make an argument.

[Guerrilla22]

You might like to try to wriggle out of your earlier gaff by labelling it &#39;semantics&#39;, but if you are happy to base your politics on a sloppy use of words, I suugest you stop moaning when this is pointed out to you, and learn to be more precise.

Like I said before my choice of words really had nothing to do with the issue at hand. Keep on believing you&#39;re making rational arguments here. In fact please call me some more names, that makes your arguments all the more credible.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

G22, getting more desperate by the minute, and, seemingly, more idiotic:


Is she not saying strip clubs should be closed down rather than have the workers unionize? Whoops&#33; Got you there.

So, you have to read things into what I say to make your fairy-tale work.

And you have the cheek criticise me over &#39;semantics&#39;. :lol:

Your antics of course are something else. :rolleyes:

Both I and YKTMX said we were in favour of unionising such workers, just as we are in favour of shutting such institutions down.

What more do you want, a telegram from the Queen?


If you claim that Amusing Scrotum&#39;s post was false than present some evidence to prove otherwise.

Eh?

What are you blathering on about now?

I claimed that you and anyone else who thought I was comparing strippers to Nazis was an idiot.

All you have done is show that that assesment of you (and them) was only half of the truth, and if anything a slur on idiots.


Like I said before my choice of words really had nothing to do with the issue at hand. Keep on believing you&#39;re making rational arguments here. In fact please call me some more names, that makes your arguments all the more credible.

You can say this all you like sonny, but if you say that you support all workers, and then deny that you do (when put under pressure), can you really blame us if we treat you as a confused idiot?

[gilhyle]

I cant help but note that in attacking Spearmint Rhino, the SWP were aiding Stringfellows who - by their own admission - were then engaged in a dirty tricks campaign against Spearmint Rhino because they couldnt compete with the wages being earned in SPearmint Rhino - because Spearmint Rhino was located outside central London and they could do a full strip.

[Guerrilla22]

Both I and YKTMX said we were in favour of unionising such workers, just as we are in favour of shutting such institutions down.

So whats the point of unionizing if you support shutting their place of employment down? That makes absolutely no sense.


What are you blathering on about now?

YKTMX claimed that Amusing Scrotum&#39;s original post about the SWP siding with a group committed to shutting down this place the blue rhino, rather than support the workers in unionizing, was not true. He claimed that the SWP never did this, so I asked him to post something supporting his calims, he chose not to.


You can say this all you like sonny, but if you say that you support all workers, and then deny that you do (when put under pressure), can you really blame us if we treat you as a confused idiot?

Shut up. You chose to respond to my choice of words because you were unable to construct an argument against what LSD said. Like I said it was irrelevant from the start. And no you don&#39;t come of as to brilliant yourself. Come on lets here your half-brained response, so I can laugh some more.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

G22:


So whats the point of unionizing if you support shutting their place of employment down? That makes absolutely no sense.

If they cannot be shut, this is the second best option.

I am amazed you cannot see this. [What are you doing that is making you go blind??]


YKTMX claimed that Amusing Scrotum&#39;s original post about the SWP siding with a group committed to shutting down this place the blue rhino, rather than support the workers in unionizing, was not true. He claimed that the SWP never did this, so I asked him to post something supporting his calims, he chose not to.

So, why did you raise this in your post directed at me?


Shut up. You chose to respond to my choice of words because you were unable to construct an argument against what LSD said. Like I said it was irrelevant from the start. And no you don&#39;t come of as to brilliant yourself.

I did not argue with LSD for the reasons I said; if you do not like those reasons, I should care.

But, I note once more your rather weak attempt to deflect attention from the fact that you began your comments on this thread with a monumental gaffe.


Come on lets here your half-brained response, so I can laugh some more.

You can join me in laughing at this corker, then:

Guerilla22.

Hilarious....

[YKTMX]

YKTMX claimed that Amusing Scrotum&#39;s original post about the SWP siding with a group committed to shutting down this place the blue rhino, rather than support the workers in unionizing, was not true. He claimed that the SWP never did this, so I asked him to post something supporting his calims, he chose not to.

I never claimed that all.

I said, if reason prevailed, the post would have been ignored as little interest except to rabid SWP-haters.

In other words, I wasn&#39;t attacking the "truth" of the report, I was attacking the conclusions people had drawn from it - namely that the party is "socially conservative".

This is, of course, a position with no basis in fact.

Unless, of course, being anti-sexist, pro-feminist and anti-exploitation is what passes for "social conservatism" these days.

One can have disagreements about the emphasis placed on anti-sexism as opposed to pro-trade unionism, and these concerns are reasonable. Maybe the party should have emphasized that point more.

But the notion that the SWP, in cahoots with nefarious "Muslims" no doubt, is on some puritanical drive to oppress women is completely absurd.

[Guerrilla22]

If they cannot be shut, this is the second best option.

The fact that you would suggest this proves you have noc onception of what it is to be a proletarian. Most proletarains do not have the luxury of choosing where they work, let alone choosing where they work based on moralistic standards. Stripping is a legitimate job, where workers are selling their labor for a wage, no different, or exploitive than any other job out there.


So, why did you raise this in your post directed at me?

I didn&#39;t, I raised it in response to YKTMX.


But, I note once more your rather weak attempt to deflect attention from the fact that you began your comments on this thread with a monumental gaffe.

And as I&#39;ve said numerous times now, your argument had nothing to do with the topic at hand, and was based on semantics, which is what people argue when they are unable to construct a legitimate argument.


In other words, I wasn&#39;t attacking the "truth" of the report, I was attacking the conclusions people had drawn from it - namely that the party is "socially conservative".

Where exactly did anyone claim this? You&#39;re using a strwa man argument.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

G22:


The fact that you would suggest this proves you have noc onception of what it is to be a proletarian. Most proletarains do not have the luxury of choosing where they work, let alone choosing where they work based on moralistic standards. Stripping is a legitimate job, where workers are selling their labor for a wage, no different, or exploitive than any other job out there.

So, you tail-end workers do you?

But your commitment to &#39;support all workers&#39; (until you found out that that meant you had to support Nazi workers) is moralistic -- surely you believe it is right for you to suppport workers?


I didn&#39;t, I raised it in response to YKTMX.

But it was in a reply addressed to me.

Are you so confused you do not know who you are replying to, now?


And as I&#39;ve said numerous times now, your argument had nothing to do with the topic at hand, and was based on semantics, which is what people argue when they are unable to construct a legitimate argument.

And you can keep saying this until strip clubs close for all the good it will do you, sonny: you said you supported all workers, and then you were forced to retreat from that when you were made to think about what your own words meant -- since, without my assistance, it seems you&#39;d post any old rubbish.

But do I get any thanks?

[Guerrilla22]

But your commitment to &#39;support all workers&#39; (until you found out that that meant you had to support Nazi workers) is moralistic -- surely you believe it is right for you to suppport workers?

This is getting ridiculous. I hate to inform you of this but the Third Reich ended a long time ago. There are no nazi workers today.



And you can keep saying this until strip clubs close for all the good it will do you, sonny: you said you supported all workers, and then you were forced to retreat from that when you were made to think about what your own words meant -- since, without my assistance, it seems you&#39;d post any old rubbish.

yawn. You sure are stubborn. So are you saying you would support the closing of all strip clubs?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

G22:


This is getting ridiculous. I hate to inform you of this but the Third Reich ended a long time ago. There are no nazi workers today.

But, no doubt, according to your own words, you would fully support them.


yawn.

Your best point so far&#33; Well done&#33;


You sure are stubborn. So are you saying you would support the closing of all strip clubs?

Read what I have said -- my stubborn streak will not allow me to keep re-typing the same words for you to misconstrue.

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 09:01 pm


In other words, I wasn&#39;t attacking the "truth" of the report, I was attacking the conclusions people had drawn from it - namely that the party is "socially conservative".

Where exactly did anyone claim this? You&#39;re using a strwa man argument.
From AS&#39;s original post:


Only found out about this today; needless to say, seems like a pretty socially conservative response to the question.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Have no fear Y, he will deny this, or blame you for being concerned only with &#39;semantics&#39;&#33;

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 23, 2007 01:04 pm
Have no fear Y, he will deny this, or blame you for being concerned only with &#39;semantics&#39;&#33;
Exactly.

These strange "linguistic games" whereby you "point out" what someone "wrote" just obscures the real issue - which is...I&#39;m not even sure anymore.

[Keyser]

Rosa and YKTMX:

You make the point of sex workers and Nazi workers/policemen/soldiers etc...

The difference is this, concentration camp guards, soldiers, policemen and other individuals associated with fascist and/or statist oppression actually physically harm and in many cases kill innocents and those members of the working class who resist oppression. They physically go out of their way to support the state, capitalism and fascism, knowing of the harm it will do and knowing that they could have got another job, but they didn&#39;t, as they are of a political persuasion that supports the oppression of other humans.

Since when did strippers, prostitutes, porn actors and other sex workers go out and arrest/kill striking workers, bomb other countries, kill innocent people and enforce the oppression of the state and capitalism?

You cannot say you support unionising/organising sex workers in one sentence, only to say in that very same sentence that you want to shut down the places where sex workers work. How are you going to organise them when they are out of work and on benefits, with no further employment prospects. You do know that if the sex work sector was shut down, that if these sex workers had to go and look for other jobs, they would most likely not et work, as most employess would not reconise their sex work as legitimate and thus consider them unemployable due to their lack of &#39;proper work experience&#39;. I&#39;m pretty sure that if the SWP/RESPECT go the whole sex work sector closed down, you can forget about organising the ex-sex workers as they will simply see your party as th party that got them out of work and on the dole and they will most likely (and rightly) tell your party to fuck off.

Also, if this is an issue of gender equality, as you claim and not of the latest twist in moralism that seems to be sweeping the SWP, what about male strippers, what about well off women who had other and good jobs, but simply wanted to go into sex work because they enjoyed it? Not all sex workers are the stereotypical image we are given of desperate people wth a drug addiction to feed, though there are those of course.

Look at street prostitution, it&#39;s illegal but does it stop poor women/men from going out to get sex work, no it does not. Did street prostitution being illegal, hence in your words &#39;shut down&#39;, stop those poor women in Ipswich from getting killed, as they had no proper protection that would have at least given them a more secure and regulated environment in which to work in?

Sex work is no different from other jobs in capitalism, yes it can be alienating and it may not even be the job of choice for the worker in question, but the same can be said for any job and worker in the capitalist system, be it a factory worker, a school dinner worker, a street cleaner or a waiter. The real issue for us is not to ban certain jobs but to change the system in it&#39;s whole, so that all work is both enjoyable and productive for the workers in question, were work means real self advancement and not being a cog to make profits for some boss.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Rosa Lichtenstein+--> (Rosa Lichtenstein)...but in the cases I gave, closing such places down is part of the fight to end exploitation in general.[/b]

No, it&#39;s not. Primarily because you&#39;ve failed to explain how women are worse off working in a strip club than working as, say, a waitress -- you&#39;ve just asserted that they are.

According to you, "Stripping encourages (and depends on) a backward view of women". I imagine, though I can&#39;t say for sure because you&#39;ve not explained this fully, that this "backward view" is seeing women primarily as objects for sexual gratification. And you&#39;re right, in a sense, strip clubs do promote this "view".

But that doesn&#39;t necessarily make it a "backward view".

After all, human sexuality relies on the objectification of other humans. A 14 year old boy who masturbates over his teacher, or his mates mother, or whatever, is objectifying these women. So maybe masturbation "encourages (and depends on) a backward view of women"? (MIM probably think that -- indeed, they probably have theoretical writings on the subject.)

Or maybe masturbation is just a normal human function? One which, yes, does objectify other humans -- but one that certainly isn&#39;t "backward".

That is, as I&#39;ve said, human sexuality does rely on objectification of other humans. And there&#39;s nothing wrong, or backward, with humans doing this. Problems only arise when people are unable to view human relationships in any other light. When objectification is the be all and end all of their world view.

But do strip clubs facilitate this scenario?

For sure, in the environment of a strip club objectification is the be all and end all. Just as in a restaurant, the be all and end all of the customers view is that the restaurant staff are simply there to serve the customer.

But that doesn&#39;t mean that either industry leads to the recreation of this environment in other spheres. Indeed, I&#39;d go as far as saying that both industries go some way to putting human relationships into neat boxes. (That&#39;s a problem in and of itself, but one for another discussion.)

That is, a strip club creates a situation where people can go somewhere to experience one particular form of the human world view. Leaving the rest of society as a place where they can experience different human relations -- love, friendship, etc., etc.

That&#39;s a neatly divided, almost bureaucratic way of dealing with human relations. Indeed, it&#39;s a very capitalistic way of experiencing human relations -- pre-packaging them like different brands and then selling them on.

But, despite all this, it still doesn&#39;t mean that strip clubs "encourage (and depend on) a backward view of women". A "backward view" that goes beyond just strip clubs, and affects society as a whole.


Originally posted by Rosa Lichtenstein+--> (Rosa Lichtenstein)And, given your argument, you would be happy to allow the &#39;Black and White Minstrels&#39; to sing merrily away on TV.[/b]

If you mean would I have joined those that thought they should be censored; then yes, "[ I ] would be happy to allow the &#39;Black and White Minstrels&#39; to sing merrily away on TV."

Granted, I wouldn&#39;t have been disappointed when the show ended -- but that doesn&#39;t mean that political censorship is the way to win an argument. After all, as I&#39;m sure you&#39;d agree, just because you couldn&#39;t acquire Trotsky&#39;s works in the USSR, doesn&#39;t mean that Trotsky was wrong.


Originally posted by YKTMX
The "sex industry", as you call it is, in a sense, sexual exploitation of the bourgeois epoch.

No, it&#39;s capitalisms way of dealing with human sexuality. Packaging it and selling it in a shop.

By contrast, "sexual exploitation [in] the bourgeois epoch" -- I presume you mean sexism -- takes on a different format. It&#39;s the lower pay women receive, the fact that they often have jobs that are at the bottom of the social ladder, that they are financially penalised for becoming mothers, etc., etc.

It&#39;s not that women sell their labour to produce something -- that&#39;s just normal capitalist exploitation.


Originally posted by YKTMX
That&#39;s true and it merely bolsters my point.

The only way it "bolsters [your] point" is if you were incapable of understanding the point I was making.


Originally posted by YKTMX
I think you&#39;re maybe over complicating it a bit here. The reason prostitutes work in cities is because there&#39;s more people there and it&#39;s easier to be inconspicuous. You wouldn&#39;t get much work if you wandered from isolated village to isolated village.

That&#39;s the whole point I was making&#33;

Prostitution relies upon the features of the modern world. The features of the modern capitalist world. Whether those features are in their infancy or not, is irrelevant -- that they are needed, is the whole point.

It&#39;s what makes "prostitution ... one of those trades that falls into the mercantilist framework."


Originally posted by YKTMX
No, that&#39;s mistaking the symptom for the illness.

What? Patriarchy is the structuring of society in a manner that leaves women socially and economically dependent on men. Whether you want to call that the symptom or the illness, that&#39;s what it is.

And, therefore, your hypothetical woman may well be "a victim of patriarchy"; but she&#39;s not still constrained by patriarchal relations. In the direct sense, anyway.

She may be affected, directly or indirectly, by sexist social structures, or many other things. But she&#39;s simply no longer constrained by the set of relations that make her socially and economically dependent on her spouse.


Originally posted by YKTMX
Viewing "economic independence" as a route away from patriarchy is a rather trite liberal view, I think. It&#39;s like saying black people can overcome racism if they get the vote and the government introduces affirmative action programmes.

What did you study in University? Because, whatever it was, it certainly didn&#39;t provide you with the skills to make a decent comparison -- first we had the child labour comparison, and now we have this.

There&#39;s is a massive difference between a formal political measure, like the right to vote, and a fundamental structural change, like some of the gains won by the women&#39;s movement. One simply masks over societal structures, the other actually changes them.

Affirmative action, though, is in the second category. It does go some way to fundamentally altering society. In the manner that the gains made by the women&#39;s movement did, that is.

That&#39;s not "a rather trite liberal" way of viewing things; it&#39;s a crucial distinction that a self-proclaimed Marxist should be able to understand.


Originally posted by YKTMX
Yet you can support the unionization of people you&#39;re trying to have removed from a workplace (i.e children)?

Yes. Simply because you&#39;re supporting the unionisation of the workplace, which you think should continue to exist even when the child labourers are removed. That is, you don&#39;t want the workplace itself to be abolished -- in the short term, anyway.


[email protected]
Imagine a factory in a area of China were the only fit labourers where people under 16 (not a difficult thing to imagine), you&#39;d support the unionization of those workers and the termination of the enterprise they work in, wouldn&#39;t you?

Yes; of course I support the both the unionisation of the workplace, "and the termination of the enterprise they work in". That is, I&#39;d support the child labourers being removed from the workplace, which would likely lead to that particular workplace closing down.

However, that doesn&#39;t make your point.

Say that workplace made clothes, or Martini glasses. Just because I&#39;d support child labourers being removed from that particular workplace which would likely lead to it closing, wouldn&#39;t mean that I wanted the whole Industry to close.

Other factories I&#39;d like to see remain open.

You, by contrast, are just objecting to one particular workplace, you want the whole Industry to go. Something which would lead too, if your comparison made any sense, all Martini glass producing factories closing down -- regardless of whether they had child labourers or not.

Do you get it now?


Rosa Lichtenstein
If you support all workers, and defend their jobs, you must also support concentration camp and KKK employees, civilian hangmen/women, prison guards, and the like.

That you consider these people workers, and not the armed bodies of men and women who compromise the state, is truly baffling. Simply put, a prison guard is not a worker -- he&#39;s part of the managerial class that governs on behalf of capitalism.

So in that sense then, you can support "all working women of the world, including exotic dancers" without support women prison guards -- or whatever.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 21, 2007 03:15 am
If you support all workers, and defend their jobs, you must also support concentration camp and KKK employees, civilian hangmen/women, prison guards, and the like.
I would say concentration camp "workers" were more like foremen in a slaverist society than actual workers.

It is clear that we should support actual workers against their employers, but this should not translate into "defend their jobs" if those jobs imply direct involvement in warfare or repressive activities. Nor "defending their jobs" should imply defending the capitalist company that provides those jobs.

And, of course, capitalist companies do different things: some make lethal weapons, other make innocent toys. All of them exploit workers, and we oppose that, but while it may be necessary to campaign for the shutdown of Boeing or Monsanto, it seems that other companies have more "legitimate" products.

The problem comes of whether the sex industry is particularly noxious as an ammonition plant, or just falls into the general class of capitalist exploitation of labour force. The argument that it "objectifies" women seems misplaced here. It doesn&#39;t "objectify" women, it makes profit out of a trend within contemporary society to objectify human beings, blended with an older, pre-capitalist tradition of considering women socially inferior to men. In fact, it quickly tends to take profit of the "objectification" of men, as soon as the social mores moves ahead from its pre-capitalist sexist reminiscences.

And, there, capitalism is about "objectification" of people - just not particularly in the sphere of circulation of commodities, but in the sphere of production. Frankly, we should be able to understand that we, workers, are all prostitutes - what varies is just the specifical part of our bodies we put at the disposal of buyers of labour force. Defending a discriminatory line against prostitutes and the sex industry, instead, tends to reinforce the idea that there are "deign" jobs and "decent" ways to be exploited by capitalists.

Now I expect you to turn this into a flame war about my grammatical abilities, or some other off-topic issue. Thanks in advance.

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Anarchism Now, you need to remember that we were using these (ad hominem) against Guerilla 22, and only against him, to expose his inconsistency.

Do not read any more in to it than that.

Hence, some of what you write, although sound in itself, is irrelevant to the points we wished to make.

Other things you say we have handled already, so I suggest you read what we have said more carefully.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

AS:


No, it&#39;s not. Primarily because you&#39;ve failed to explain how women are worse off working in a strip club than working as, say, a waitress -- you&#39;ve just asserted that they are.

I am beginning to despair of you; what has the individual status of disparate groups of women got to do with a class/social analysis?

The jobs of waitresses do not affect the stereotypical role of women as sex objects; those of strippers do.

Now, evolution supposedly gave you a brain; please try to use it.


If you mean would I have joined those that thought they should be censored; then yes, "[ I ] would be happy to allow the &#39;Black and White Minstrels&#39; to sing merrily away on TV."

Who mentioned censorship? As before, with the ballet dancers, you&#39;d passively sit by and let racists spout their filth, or trail their stereotypes on TV, since censorship is oh so heinous, whereas sexism and racism are relatively OK.

And you think to point your lazy fingers at us?

I cannot be bothered to read any more of the pathetic excuse for socialist analysis you have inflicted on us AS.

[sexyguy]

Amazing what preoccupies the ’left’.

We really need to hear if any of the ‘strippers’ are revolutionaries. Ditto all other trades, professions, lifestyles etc. .

[Luís Henrique]

It is always good to see that my crystal ball seems to be working niftly.

Luís Henrique

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by YKTMX+March 23, 2007 10:58 am--> (YKTMX @ March 23, 2007 10:58 am)
[email protected] 22, 2007 09:01 pm


In other words, I wasn&#39;t attacking the "truth" of the report, I was attacking the conclusions people had drawn from it - namely that the party is "socially conservative".

Where exactly did anyone claim this? You&#39;re using a strwa man argument.
From AS&#39;s original post:


Only found out about this today; needless to say, seems like a pretty socially conservative response to the question. [/b]
At anyrate, your assertion that the SWP is acting in the interest of feminism and anti-sexism is hilarious considering the SWP aligned with a muslim group and a rival strip club in calling for the Blue rhino to be closed.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

G22:


At anyrate, your assertion that the SWP is acting in the interest of feminism and anti-sexism is hilarious considering the SWP aligned with a muslim group and a rival strip club in calling for the Blue rhino to be closed.

What are you blathering on about now?

You are only trying to deflect attention form the fact that when you entered this discussion you dropped a monumental clanger.

[Moshehess]

Hello,

I just joined the website and was pleased to see a discussion on SWP. I am a former member (6 years) ago and was a unhappy member.

Anyway good to see a discussion on them cos i know they do not allow open-minded discussion like this in their ranks.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Moshehess, sorry to disagree with you, but they do.

And they do so a darn sight more than other revolutionary groups do. That is one of the things that attracted me to them.

And, I have been in and around the UK-SWP since the early 1980's.

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 28, 2007 08:38 am
G22:


At anyrate, your assertion that the SWP is acting in the interest of feminism and anti-sexism is hilarious considering the SWP aligned with a muslim group and a rival strip club in calling for the Blue rhino to be closed.

What are you blathering on about now?

You are only trying to deflect attention form the fact that when you entered this discussion you dropped a monumental clanger.
Please. We&#39;ve already been over this. I&#39;m just pointing out the error in YKTMX&#39;s assertion that the SWP was acting in the interest in pro-feminism and anti-sexism with their actions. As a stated before, you only choose to attack semantics because you were not capable of constructing an argument to defend the SWP&#39;s actions.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Guerrilla22+March 28, 2007 11:38 pm--> (Guerrilla22 &#064; March 28, 2007 11:38 pm)
Rosa [email protected] 28, 2007 08:38 am
G22:


At anyrate, your assertion that the SWP is acting in the interest of feminism and anti-sexism is hilarious considering the SWP aligned with a muslim group and a rival strip club in calling for the Blue rhino to be closed.

What are you blathering on about now?

You are only trying to deflect attention form the fact that when you entered this discussion you dropped a monumental clanger.
Please. We&#39;ve already been over this. I&#39;m just pointing out the error in YKTMX&#39;s assertion that the SWP was acting in the interest in pro-feminism and anti-sexism with their actions. As a stated before, you only choose to attack semantics because you were not capable of constructing an argument to defend the SWP&#39;s actions. [/b]
Defending the actions of SWP is one thing. Defending your version of their actions is another.

You accuse the SWP of a) being aligned with a Muslim group (and making the spacious and absolutely bigoted assumption that because they are Muslim they are against women&#39;s rights); and b) that the SWP is in cahoots with Peter Stringfellow - a charge so laughable it only demonstrates what a narrow sectarian idiot you are.

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by Citizen Zero+March 28, 2007 10:51 pm--> (Citizen Zero @ March 28, 2007 10:51 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 11:38 pm

Rosa [email protected] 28, 2007 08:38 am
G22:


At anyrate, your assertion that the SWP is acting in the interest of feminism and anti-sexism is hilarious considering the SWP aligned with a muslim group and a rival strip club in calling for the Blue rhino to be closed.

What are you blathering on about now?

You are only trying to deflect attention form the fact that when you entered this discussion you dropped a monumental clanger.
Please. We&#39;ve already been over this. I&#39;m just pointing out the error in YKTMX&#39;s assertion that the SWP was acting in the interest in pro-feminism and anti-sexism with their actions. As a stated before, you only choose to attack semantics because you were not capable of constructing an argument to defend the SWP&#39;s actions.
Defending the actions of SWP is one thing. Defending your version of their actions is another.

You accuse the SWP of a) being aligned with a Muslim group (and making the spacious and absolutely bigoted assumption that because they are Muslim they are against women&#39;s rights); and b) that the SWP is in cahoots with Peter Stringfellow - a charge so laughable it only demonstrates what a narrow sectarian idiot you are. [/b]
Yeah, I hate to break it to you, but the beliefs of Islamic groups tend to run completely contrary to those of feminist groups. Its not bigotry, its reality.


that the SWP is in cahoots with Peter Stringfellow - a charge so laughable it only demonstrates what a narrow sectarian idiot you are

When did I ever make this charge. You&#39;re putting words into my mouth in order to construct an argument. :rolleyes:

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 12:24 am


that the SWP is in cahoots with Peter Stringfellow - a charge so laughable it only demonstrates what a narrow sectarian idiot you are

When did I ever make this charge. You&#39;re putting words into my mouth in order to construct an argument. :rolleyes:
You make the charge here:


the SWP aligned with a muslim group and a rival strip club

I&#39;ve added emphasis to help you out, comrade.


Yeah, I hate to break it to you, but the beliefs of Islamic groups tend to run completely contrary to those of feminist groups. Its not bigotry, its reality.

Can I draw your attention to Stop the War Coalition and national vice-chair of Respect, Salma Yaqoob, fast becoming one of the most prominent figures on the British Left - a woman, a socialist and a Muslim.

Hey, maybe she&#39;s just a tokenistic cover for the Ayatollahs of the SWP, who are even now in secret negotiations with Tehran to abolish women altogether&#33;

Or maybe she&#39;s an example of the type of young, working class Muslims who are being attracted to the SWP in their droves.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

G22:


Please. We've already been over this

So stop trying to do it, then.


I'm just pointing out the error in YKTMX's assertion that the SWP was acting in the interest in pro-feminism and anti-sexism with their actions. As a stated before, you only choose to attack semantics because you were not capable of constructing an argument to defend the SWP's actions.

The 'semantics' you refer to was your rash statement that you supported all workers, which claim you had to withdraw under pressure.

As I noted, this is why you have to distract atention all the time.

The rest, of course, you made up as you went along.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z, you see, we agree over far more than we disagree. :)

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 29, 2007 01:17 am
Z, you see, we agree over far more than we disagree. :)
I never doubted it. :)

[TC]

I’ve been reluctant to enter this discussion as I’m likely to alienate both sides, but its sufficiently disturbing to me at this point that I will anyways. On one side, the swp, islamists and their defenders, who have an anti-sex position that seems to take an extraordinarily paternalistic view of women and puritanical view of sex. On the other side, LSD has taken a totally phalocentric line that passes casual male chauvinism off as a pro-sex position.

The social conservatives are wrong when they imagine that sex is something that’s wrong and exploitive and degrading if its not some sort of idealized perfectly fulfilling romantic emotional relationship affirming disnified thing. Further the assersion that women somehow have to be protected from using their own sexuality for financial and social gain, protected form themselves in effect, is extremely demeaning. but LSD et al are also clearly wrong to imagine that ‘sex work’ is work just like any other and if you don’t regard it as absolutely trivial and no reason for any concern, than you’re clearly just enslaved to traditional sexual morality. That attitude presumes that an emotionally and psychologically, physically detached, typically but not exclusively male, perspective on sex as meaningless is the normative and natural one, and that to me smacks of a type of leftwing male chauvinism.



Originally posted by LSD+--> (LSD) If you get paid for it, yes. Otherwise, no.

But then that&#39;s true for a whole bunch of capitalist occupations.

Talking on the telephone isn&#39;t usually considered work, but when one gets paid for it (telemarketing) it is; the same goes for actors and advertising artists and cooks and writers and all sorts of service workers.

Are you suggesting that waiters are somehow "not normal"?

Look, work isn&#39;t defined by the action alone, it&#39;s defined by the action plus context.[/b]

LSD you’re totally rejecting the Marxist labour theory of value here. Work is not defined by action plus context, putting it in bold doesn’t make it more true.

Work is defined, by Marx, by whether or not labour adds value, not whether or not you get paid for it, you are using the bourgeois definition of work.

It is simply false that cooks and other service workers are ‘working’ if they get paid for it and ‘not working’ if they don’t, they are working either way. Do you dispute the existence of unpaid domestic labour? A wife/mother in a patriarchal family works as much when she prepares dinner for no pay as a Michelin star chef works doing when she gets paid a high six figure income. Both are instances of productive labour that add capital value, that turn raw materials in the form the ingredients into something more intrinsically valuable, a meal, through labour.

Likewise, calling up random people on a list of names, isn’t work, whether you’re a teenager at slumber party or a “professional” telemarketer. Marketers, from guys holding signs and giving out fliers on the street to powerful marketing executives who design “product launchs” are not workers, they have a parasitic relationship to the economy not a productive one.

The capitalist market system pays people to participate in totally unproductive activity who are neither workers nor capitalists, but, as Engel’s described in his 1845 speeches in elberfeld, “the swindling middlemen of capitalism”


Originally posted by Engels+--> ( Engels) Let us take, for example, a bale of cotton produced in North America. The bale passes from the hands of the planter into those of the agent on some station or other 6n the Mississippi and travels down the river to New Orleans. Here it is sold — for a second time, for the agent has already bought it from the planter — sold, it might well be, to the speculator, who sells it once again, to the exporter. The bale now travels to Liverpool where, once again, a greedy speculator stretches out his hands towards it and grabs it. This man then trades it to a commission agent who, let us assume, is a buyer for a German house. So the bale travels to Rotterdam, up the Rhine, through another dozen hands of forwarding agents, being unloaded and loaded a dozen times, and only then does it arrive in the hands, not of the consumer, but of the manufacturer, who first makes it into an article of consumption, and who perhaps sells his yarn to a weaver, who disposes of what he has woven to the textile printer, who then does business with the wholesaler, who then deals with the retailer, who finally sells the commodity to the consumer. And all these millions of intermediary swindlers, speculators, agents, exporters, commission agents, forwarding agents, wholesalers and retailers, who actually contribute nothing to the commodity itself — they all want to live and make a profit — and they do make it too, on the average, otherwise they could not subsist.[/b]
Engel’s other example in the same text was precisely people like waiters and domestic servants who are paid to perform meaningless tasks simply for the amusement of the upper classes


[email protected]
This crowd of maids, cooks, lackeys, coachmen, domestic servants, gardeners and whatever they are called, what do they really do? For how few moments during the day they are occupied in making the lives of their masters really pleasant, in facilitating the free development and exercise of their human nature and inborn capacities

This is what strippers and prostitutes do. People who are paid for sexual services are not workers, what they’re doing is not productive. That doesn’t mean that its *wrong*, but sex workers do not have a proletarian relationship to the economy and pretending that they do is unmarxist as moralizing that they’re somehow ‘violating women’s rights’ or ‘immoral.’

In a communist society, you wouldn’t expect to see sex workers, but you wouldn’t expect to see waitresses or telemarketers either. What possible point would there be in a democratically planned economy to pay people for useless things? Strippers live off of other people’s labour, they don’t contribute capital to the economy, their relationship is equally parasitic as marketers. It is incorrect to equate employees with workers, capitalists employ tons of people who don’t do any real work and they often pay them far more than they pay real workers.

The fact that a very attractive young woman can earn more in a night as a sex “worker” than they can in a month as a factory worker, doesn’t prove that sex “work” is real work, it proves that it isn’t&#33; Real workers are only compensated for their labour, and unskilled labour has a market value a fraction of what sex workers get. That shows that what they’re being compensated for isn’t labour at all, but special qualities, such as physical appearance and sexual inhibitions, athletic talent and skill, and lack of traditional morality and social shame, a combination of qualities far rarer than the ability to work on an assembly line. Likewise, marketing executives get paid more, investment bankers get paid more, corporate lawyers get paid more, and executives, bankers and lawyers, like strippers, do physically and socially demanding activity that adds no real capital to the economy. If you called them “marketing workers”, “investment workers” and “legal workers”, the way people have decided to label “sex workers”, that wouldn’t make them any closer to being actual workers.


Having said that, in a capitalist economy, while it is totally unmarxist to regard strippers as workers, they are still employees and its totally sensible for employees to unionize to improve their conditions where they are. People who get paid for sexual services aren’t workers and they’re just taking advantage of capitalist willingness to part with a portion of the surplus profit that real workers create to subsidiary parasitic classes, but it is insane and reactionary to target them on such an account when the vast majority of well compensated employees have the same relationship to the economy and the service sector is bloated with unproductive employees that cater to artificial needs created by capitalists.


There is nothing wrong with living off the capitalists this way though, because capitalists horde so much wealth and capitalism distributes wealth so poorly and the anarchy of the market is so inefficient compared to planned economies that capitalists need far fewer proletariat than there are people available, but the domestic market wouldn’t function if the remainder were simply unemployed and people would be impossible to control, so capitalists pay them to do worthless tasks. For instance, the American government will continue to have people build worthless obsolete warships that are never intended to go into service, because the consequences of having them unemployed would be more expensive than just paying them.



LSD

And insofar as sex work being the "worst form of labour", I would really challenge you to defend that assertion. Obviously it&#39;s a rather denigrated occupation, but you don&#39;t think that has anything to do with contemporary sexual morality which teaches us that sex work is "wrong" and "humiliating"?


I don’t think you can talk of ‘sex work’ meaningfully as a single thing, people talk about it that way euphemistically, but there is a huge difference in the experience of someone doing webcam porn self employed, a professional porn actor, someone stripping in a club for an employer, a self employed escort who selects her own clients and receives 100% of the proceeds after advertising costs, and a brothel prostitute payed a wage by an employer. Labeling all five people sex workers and discussing them as such does precisely what LSD complains about, it treats sex as though its special by grouping people according to a single unifying element when their ‘work conditions’, experience and relative power could not be more different.

What really disturbs me here though is that LSD equates whats “wrong” in terms of sexual morality, with whats humiliating in terms of the experience of personal violation. It is as though LSD doesn’t see a concern for personal, physical, sexual integrity, a concern that is frankly more frequently relevant to women than to men, as being a legitimate concern at all but just some part of sexual hang-ups.

Is taking off your clothes in front of a webcam on a site that you get money from subscriptions,, ‘humiliating’? Not of you’re an exhibitionist type and you get off on it, or you’re extremely uninhibited.

Is being fucked by a man who you’re not attracted to, or even physically repulsed by, who is only considering his own pleasure at your expense, humiliating? Absolutely, in fact its hard to imagine many things more humiliating than that (apart from rape), and you don’t need any anti-sex morality to realize that. That is essentially what models of prostitution where prostitutes are employees entails.



And if one is forced to choose between collecting trash and fucking, in sexually liberated society, I&#39;d venture that most would choose the latter.

This is just so wrong and really reflects a sort of casual male chauvinism.

Of course everyone would rather have sex with their partner or with a person they found very physically attractive who was very good in bed but that’s not the type of sex anyone gets paid for.

I honestly believe that you would rather fuck for a living than collect trash for a living, but if the money were the same I’m sure the vast majority of women would rather collect trash.

Some (stupid) guys seem to imagine that when it comes to sex, what feels good for them must feel good for their partner, but this is just, unfortunately, not the mechanical reality of sex. Although anti-sex reactionary have done a lot to try to mystify female sexual purity, it doesn’t fully account for the simple anatomic difference between fucking someone and getting fucked by someone. A young guy can get hard and fuck someone and reliably have an orgasm even if he’s not attracted to them, even if there’s no foreplay. Being fucked by a big inconsiderate guy though, when you’re not physically and psychologically turned on, ranges from very uncomfortable to painful, and most women don’t have orgasms most of the time even under optimal conditions with considerate men they’re attracted to. Anti-sex “feminists” make the mistake of presuming that heterosexual sex is *always* much better for the man even when its really good sex, but you seem to be implicitly making the mistake of assuming that sex is equivalent for the woman even when its bad sex for hire. I do think that bad sex is a much bigger deal for women then for men, not for psychological, social, or not moral reasons but for fairly obvious physical ones.

Prostitutes don’t have sex to have sex, they have sex for money, they are in affect renting out their bodies for a clients sexual gratification. This is completely different than the type of sex people normally have in healthy relationships or non-exploitive hookups because in those situations sex is essentially equal and reciprocal, its about both partners pleasure and one party doesn’t enjoy themselves if they don’t think the other party is. When someone hires someone elses body to fuck, they aren’t thinking of the prostitutes pleasure, they’re only thinking of their own, understandably since they paid for it, the situation is explicitly unequal as there’s a monetary transaction.

They pay women who are willing to have sex for money (rather than sexual gratification) magnitudes more than they pay people to collect trash for a reason: women wouldn’t do it for the type of money trash collectors earn. Clearly, if women on average preferred to have sex for money than collect trash for money, the market would correct itself because no one would pay prostitutes more than they needed to to get them to do what they wanted. That’s not how capitalism works. So clearly you are simply empirical wrong on this point.


but free of all its cultural baggage, prostitution truly is a job just like any other.

No, its truly not. Prostitution doesn’t just pay better than unskilled labour, it pays more than highly skilled workers; few top professionals in big cities can command an hourly wage equal to established escorts in a big city. If it was just a job like any other it wouldn’t demand that type of compensation.

Its not even comparable to other types of ‘sex work.’ Prostitutes are literally renting out their bodies, they aren’t simply alienated from the product of their labour, they’re alienated from their own bodies. This is in fact a more profound level of alienation, it’s a different type of alienation.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 10:13 pm
Work is defined, by Marx, by whether or not labour adds value, not whether or not you get paid for it, you are using the bourgeois definition of work.
So, workers who don&#39;t add value are not workers? Janitors, housemaids, sellers, waiters, bank clerks, public school teachers, policemen, are not workers?

I think you are confusing work with productive work.

Luís Henrique

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+March 29, 2007 11:59 pm--> (Luís Henrique &#064; March 29, 2007 11:59 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 10:13 pm
Work is defined, by Marx, by whether or not labour adds value, not whether or not you get paid for it, you are using the bourgeois definition of work.
So, workers who don&#39;t add value are not workers? Janitors, housemaids, sellers, waiters, bank clerks, public school teachers, policemen, are not workers?

I think you are confusing work with productive work.

Luís Henrique[/b]

Luís, see this thread (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=50527&hl=escort) and this thread (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49379&hl=actors) for a more in-depth look at Tragic&#39;s view of what actually constitutes a worker. She&#39;d probably lump all the occupations you listed, bar the housemaid (?), in the "Intelligentsia" class.

Unlike the bourgeois, intelligentsia sell their effort rather than reaping profit off of investment. They don&#39;t produce anything, nor do they add additional tangible value, rather they perform services that have intangible value, most of their services fit into catagories of either organizing, advising, educating, entertaining, or producing creative works considered culturally significant. The classic examples are academics and artists, but educators, administrators, psychologists, lawyers, managers, marketers, engineers, designers, journalists, politicians, and anyone else who works for a living but doesn&#39;t make anything material, are all intelligentsia. -- Tragic.


Personally, I&#39;d say only the occupation of Policeman is one where the person doing it is not a worker under any circumstances. People doing the other occupations, can be working class.

For instance, when I was working in Staybrite on £4.35 (?) an hour -- a "seller" -- I wouldn&#39;t have said I felt like I was climbing the class ladder. I found the work horrible, and I quit after a short period of time.

But maybe, just maybe, for that period of time I was middle class. <_<
_ _ _ _ _

It should also be pointed out that Engels, or Marx for that matter, weren&#39;t exactly in the best position to judge service work. Not only did they live 50 or more years before it became dominant, but they also had objective personal and class interests in minimising its importance.

That is, as individuals who both saw themselves as champions of the working class, which they were, and as individuals who also had maids, they would have had a distinct personal interest in painting service work as phoney work. Because by doing this, they could gloss over the contradiction between their class privilege and their political allegiances.


Citizen Zero
Or maybe she&#39;s an example of the type of young, working class Muslims who are being attracted to the SWP in their droves.

She&#39;s a local councillor who used to be a Doctor and is married to a Doctor.

But, hey, maybe people like her, and people like Tafazzal Hussain (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/665/respect.htm), really are "[examples] of the type of young, working class Muslims who are being attracted to the SWP in their droves." After all, it&#39;s a funny old world.

[Vanguard1917]

Or maybe she&#39;s an example of the type of young, working class Muslims who are being attracted to the SWP in their droves.

&#39;Droves&#39; of working class Muslims are being attracted to the SWP? Are you going to back up this highly dubious claim?

And just out of interest, and not that it matters in the way that you think it does, why did you assume that Salma Yaqoob (a woman from a professional background who is married to a doctor) is working class?

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Amusing Scrotum



It should also be pointed out that Engels, or Marx for that matter, weren&#39;t exactly in the best position to judge service work. Not only did they live 50 or more years before it became dominant, but they also had objective personal and class interests in minimising its importance.

That is, as individuals who both saw themselves as champions of the working class, which they were, and as individuals who also had maids, they would have had a distinct personal interest in painting service work as phoney work. Because by doing this, they could gloss over the contradiction between their class privilege and their political allegiances.

i remember a while back, reading something that Marx and Engels thought not proletarian members of the working class, like clerks or service workers, were just as much a part of the class struggle as proletarians.

i will try to dig it out.


Tragic Clown


Unlike the bourgeois, intelligentsia sell their effort rather than reaping profit off of investment. They don&#39;t produce anything, nor do they add additional tangible value, rather they perform services that have intangible value, most of their services fit into catagories of either organizing, advising, educating, entertaining, or producing creative works considered culturally significant. The classic examples are academics and artists, but educators, administrators, psychologists, lawyers, managers, marketers, engineers, designers, journalists, politicians, and anyone else who works for a living but doesn&#39;t make anything material, are all intelligentsia. -- Tragic.


Do you mean this in the classical definition of intelligentsia or the way Gramsci understood intelligentsia?

[TC]

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 29, 2007 11:59 pm

So, workers who don&#39;t add value are not workers? Janitors, housemaids, sellers, waiters, bank clerks, public school teachers, policemen, are not workers?

Bank clerks, sellers, housemaids, and police officers are absolutely not workers. Please read the Engel&#39;s quotes i referred to. Police officers are in direct class opposition to workers.

Janitors and people who maintain facilities and what not in working order are workers if they&#39;re performing a necessary function that the area they&#39;re taking care of would be less productive if they didn&#39;t, as this amounts to adding value.

Likewise people are vastly more productive when they&#39;re educated so vocational teachers are arguably adding value.

Academics though are clearly not workers, they&#39;re members of the ideological classes.

[TC]

To finish responding to LSD:


Originally posted by LSD+--> (LSD) We need stand by the working class, the entire working class, no matter what "traditional values" have to say about the service they preform.[/b]

The traditional values stuff is bullshit, the belief that sex “workers” degrade women collectively rather than just themselves is bullshit, but as I’ve pointed out earlier, your belief that prostitutes are part of the working class is totally incompatible with Marxism. If you want to call prostitutes ‘working class’, you could call corporate executives part of the working class, they do unproductive ‘work’ too.


LSD

As I&#39;ve said before, a prostitute is just a massage therapist who works on a different part of the body.

A massage therapist is doing work on a clients body; typically with a prostitute, the client is doing ‘work’ on the prostitutes body. If you can’t see why the later is a more vulnerable position to be in than I think you have a profound lack of empathy.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Before i respond to Rosa and YKTMX’s, i&#39;d like to respond to their insistence that the SWP is not involved with islamists and social conservatives. This is so untrue, RESPECT was set up as an attempted alliance of SWP socialists with Islamist conservatives. The SWP supports islamist Taliban sympathizer Yvone Ridley, an absolute conservative psychopath, as their top candidates in elections, and gives her as high of a profile as it can manage. It supports anti-abortion activist George Galloway as its sole member of parliament, who praises the islamist government of Iran far beyond mere defense against imperialism.

You might be able to say this stuff to people on revleft overseas with a straight face, but as an anti-war activist in London who has listened to enough SWP sponsored speeches, often with high profile SWP leaders sharing platforms with high profile islamists, and heard from enough SWPers in meetings, I really find your denials incredibly out of sink with the reality in the SWP, at least in London.

I have personally seen SWP speakers share a platform and speak with Hizb Ut-Tahrir activist Asim Qureshi who spoke in favour of the Taliban’s policies on women just a few months ago at the UCL ISOC "war on terror week"

[TC]

Now that I’ve finished responding to LSD I’ll respond to the social conservatives, Rosa and YKTMX.

Rosa appears to make wild claims about ‘sexism’ and ‘stereotypes’ in a clearly liberal manner without being able to relate it to any sort of Marxist or materialist analysis of whats actually going on. Her notion of “sexism” appears to not be an actual materially based institutional sexism at all but rather a sort of conservative mysticism where if one woman uses her sexuality as a commodity it metaphysically makes all women commodities. Perhaps this could be understood in Hegelian reasoning but not in Marxism.

YKTMX however is even more disturbing in that, even when its pointed out how incorrect he is, he continues to use the term patriarchy when clearly failing to understand what the term means and wholely rejecting the Marxist and Marxist feminist understanding of the patriarchy as a socio-economic class based institution. Instead he seems to posit a ‘patriarchy’ that sits above class, economy, and relations of production, again appealing to, metaphysical position, and unlike Rosa who simply avoids discussing Marxism, YKTMX actually explicitly and repeatedly rejects Marxism.

When you have to appeal to metaphysical interaction rather than material interaction, as I’ll show that Rosa and YKTMX are doing, you can be sure that the argument is a purely emotive ideological one as conservative positions tend to be, rather than one concerning class and personal interests as Marxist positions are.

Finally before I start responding, I think Amusing Scrotum has made very useful and accurate contributions to clarifying some of the blatant errors that Rosa and YKTMX have been making.





Originally posted by Rosa Lichtenstein+--> (Rosa Lichtenstein) You mistake the reason for my contrast; there is a world of difference between a job that actively re-inforces regressive gender stereotypes (and worse),[/b]

Strippers don’t reinforce “regressive gender stereotypes” at all, in any way. What ‘gender stereotypes” are you thinking of and how would they possibly “reinforce” them? By what mechanism does one ‘reinforce’ a stereotype?

When you get into ridiculous language like that as if strippers were somehow oppressing other women, its pretty obvious that the agenda is not defending the interests of the strippers but policing public morality. “Reinforcing gender stereotypes” is an assertions empty of any real content that stands in, in acceptable leftist language, for social conservative disgust.

If anything they defy traditional gender stereotypes of female sexual passivity, as strippers are sexually assertive and confident, and unlike prostitutes, their customers can’t do anything to them, they’re completely in control of their interaction.


Originally posted by Rosa+--> (Rosa)
For example; a generation ago in the UK we used to have something on TV called &#39;The Black and White Minstrels Show&#39; which among other things had white actors made up to look like caricatures of black men. It was brazenly racist and would never be allowed these days...

...
We&#39;d never allow only, say, black women to strip, [/b]

White actors dressing up as caricatures of black men to be comedic subjects of ridicule and derision is what made that racist, this is totally different than a group of black people presented for their own merits as desirable. No one complains that some record labels only have black artists.


Originally posted by Rosa
So, why do we put up with the systematic degradation of all women?


This is one of the most common and stupidly patronizing arguments against pornography and the sex industry.

I’m sorry Rosa but some stripper in tower hamlets who you’ve never met or seen and only know of on a hypothetical level, cannot possibly degrading you, she can’t possibly be hurting three billion other women who she’s had no direct or indirect affect on in any way. There is simply no conceivable way that anyone could be degraded by someone else stripping in front of other people, and deciding that you feel “degraded” by it is pure projection on your part, effectively dehumanizing the people actually involved by replacing their real experience for your own vicarious embarrassment.

To suggest that purely symbolic interaction between individuals “systematical degrades” women or any other demographic group is absolutely absurd and it’s a reaction that comes not from a feminist perspective but from a conservative female identitarian perspective.

To illustrate this point, if a 21 year old English speaking female university student is stripping at a club, why exactly should I feel degraded as a woman by that, rather than choosing to feel degraded as a 21 year old, degraded as an English speaker, or degraded as a university student? If she wasn’t female, she probably wouldn’t be a stripper, but then if she wasn’t above 18 and under 25 or so, she couldn’t be a stripper, if she wasn’t an English speaker, she probably couldn’t be a stripper, and for the sake of this hypothetical example, say if she wasn’t putting herself through university, she wouldn’t be a stripper, so why not claim degradation on account of age, language or social status rather than simply gender? Or moreover, why feel degraded at all when what someone does on their own time with their own body has truly nothing to do with you.

The only possible way you could imagine that strippers “systematically degrade all women” would be if you choose to select a point of identification with these strippers arbitrarily, with no material basis but simply on an appeal to a type of female chauvinism. This reaction has nothing to do with anything that’s actually going on, rather it superimposes its own narrative of “systematic degradation” with no grounding in reality.



So Rosa, in all seriousness, do you think that Chippendale dancers systematically degrade all men? I’m not being flippant, really, does having young, gym bodied guys strip off stereotypically masculine outfits (firefighter, cowboy, construction worker outfits, etc) and dance in an explicitly sexual way for mostly middle aged women, actually degrade all men, like, even the men who have never even heard of Chippendales. If not, then why not? You can’t argue its because ‘men aren’t degraded’ or you’ll have a totally circular psudo-definition of degradation that presupposes degradation in one case and not the other and therefore has nothing to do with the actual consequences of stripping or anything else. If so, than why the lack of outrage? Is it just harder to degrade men, do they just take it better or something?

I think it should be clear that your position is totally untenable and internally inconsistent.



Originally posted by Rosa

We&#39;d never allow the systematic degradation of, say, all African Americans.


We’d also never consider regarding a particular African American man as sexually desirable as degrading, or otherwise affecting, other African Americans. When 50 cent poses mostly naked in music videos, obviously trying to make use of his sex appeal, you don’t have outrage from the conservative right and the anti-sex “feminist” ‘left’ that he’s degrading all African Americans. It would be totally laughable.





Originally posted by Amusing Scrotum

In that post, the point was more like this: sex work, especially prostitution, pre-dates capitalism. In that sense then, it is very much a relic of pre-capitalist times. And because of this history, it can be described as a thoroughly patriarchal part of the economy. That is, the human relations involved bear the marks of patriarchy.

You’re taking an ahistorical and unmarxist view of ‘patriarchy’

Patriarchy is not some abstract thing that somehow transcends mode of production, rather it’s a set of social relations that works in tandem to support the mode of production.

The patriarchy of bourgeois capitalism is very different from feudal patriarchy because the social needs of capitalism are very different than feudalism.



Originally posted by Amusing Scrotum

To start with, viewing the sex industry as something which pre-dates capitalism is plain wrong. Playboy, Hustler, Spearmint Rhino, etc., are very much products of the 20th century -- that is, the capitalist era.

The sex ‘industry’ is old as agriculture. There was widespread prostitution ancient Rome and Greece, complete with pornographic (a Greek word) literature and art work to advertise it.


Originally posted by Citizen Zero
And it may have escaped your notice, but it&#39;s not women who decide to set up lap dancing clubs, it&#39;s men. Maybe you&#39;d like to contemplate the implications of that fact.


There are about zero implications of that “fact”, were it a fact, which its not.

Do you honestly think that having a female madam owning a brothel, as is traditionally common, is less exploitive than having a man in exactly the same role? If you do than I guess you’re abandoning any pretense to taking a Marxist view of this issue as you clearly don’t think that economic relations determine social relations.

Whether a capitalist is male or female is irrelevant, it’s the fact that they’re a capitalist that determines the way they interact with their employees.

Honestly, if there were literally no male owners of any strip clubs, would it really make you view them neutrally rather than with disgust? One of the biggest ironies of the anti-sex psudo-“feminists” secondary target, the fashion industry, is that while they accuse it of somehow ‘oppressing’ women, its an industry owned overwhelmingly by women, run overwhelmingly by women, employing women, for female consumers, where straight men are rarer than gay men...its the last capitalist industry that could realistically be conceptualized as the creation of predatory men degrading women, but after the sex industry, the fashion industry is their favourite target.

So clearly, its not a strange belief that a male capitalist is worse than a female capitalist, but a disgust at public displays of female sexuality for men. Wanting to end that, isn’t about wanting to end exploitation, its about wanting to repress sexual expression.


Originally posted by Apathy Maybe

What about male prostitutes and strippers and porn stars and so on? Are they in the same position as female (whatever)? If not, why not?


Its okay for men to express themselves sexually and make money from it because it doesn’t creep people out in a repressed Victorian way.




Originally posted by YKYMX

Viewing "economic independence" as a route away from patriarchy is a rather trite liberal view, I think.

Then you’d be totally wrong. The patriarchy is an economic phenomenon, economic independence *is* independence from patriarchy. If you don’t get this, than you don’t get what the patriarchy is in any Marxist sense.

I suggest you read Engel’s on the Origin of the Family and Marx on Holy Family.


Originally posted by YKYMX
It&#39;s like saying black people can overcome racism if they get the vote and the government introduces affirmative action programmes.

No actually its like saying black people can overcome racism if they get economic parity with white people, which they haven’t even come close to doing, and if they did, then they would have overcome institutional racism.

Getting to vote and having some limited affirmative action are virtually symbolic, superficial forms of equality; real equality is economic equality, Marxists recognize that power follows from economic conditions not voting.


Originally posted by YKYMX

Patriarchy, like racism, is not only an economic and political structure, those these aspects are important, it&#39;s a social structure, and as such can&#39;t be overcome by individual action or government decree.

You have it wrong. Social structure is a result of economic and political structure, it doesn’t float independently above the economy, and I’m not really sure why I have to point this out as I thought this was pretty much settled in Das Kapital.

These types of totally anti-Marxist beliefs are what happen when you don’t actually do any independent research and you just listen to cadre speakers meetings.


Originally posted by YKYMX


No, that&#39;s mistaking the symptom for the illness. The social and historical structure of patriarchy produces social relationships which then stabilize and reinforce that structure.

No, you’re wrong and being totally unmarxist. Structural institutions are not arbitrarily self-reinforcing things that exist independent of the economic base, they are rather created by the economic base in order to reinforce the mode of production, patriarchy is no exception to this. Really this is like basic Marxist social theory, its shocking that you think you’re a Marxist but you don’t know this.


Originally posted by YKTMX

So, a woman who leaves her husband, shaves her head, disowns her children and gets a job on the board of a major Investment bank would still be a victim of patriarchy.

No, she wouldn’t, at all, she’d be an independent capitalist and a member of the bourgeois ruling class. Unmarried capitalist women aren’t victims of patriarchy (though capitalist men’s financially dependent housewives and children are...being married to a capitalist doesn’t make one a member of the capitalist class).

Patriarchy is the concrete, material relations of production in gender divided domestic and public labour spheres giving patriarchal husbands and fathers control over their wives and daughters by way of their superior socioeconomic position, control of finances and social access. It is not some magical abstract thing that affects all women on a biological level no matter how socially and economically powerful they are, but a real form of material oppression that affects the majority of women based on their actual social relations.

For Marxists, the industrial bourgeois are defined as a class by investing capital in the means of production and taking, living off and reinvesting the surplus value that their employees produce with that investment, not by having a penis.


Originally posted by YKTMX

So it is clear that a woman who leaves the patriarchy of the traditional family in order to sell herself to men on the street is no sense "overcoming" patriarchy.

Actually what’s really clear from your argument and example is simply that you don’t have the vaguest clue as to what patriarchy actually is, or for that matter, how social institutions are constructed from a Marxist perspective.


Originally posted by Rosa


But, I wonder if your support for strip clubs is encouraging you to engage in acts that are affecting your eyesight?&#33;?


Very mature Rosa.


Originally posted by Rosa

We have been through this already. How many more times do you need this obvious point explaining to you?

You do realize that claiming to have already explained a point does not constitute offering a coherent explanation for that point right, only to a funny doublespeak.

You did no such thing Rosa, you’ve just asserted it without proof in a verity of ways.


Originally posted by Amusing Scrotum

What? Patriarchy is the structuring of society in a manner that leaves women socially and economically dependent on men. Whether you want to call that the symptom or the illness, that&#39;s what it is.

And, therefore, your hypothetical woman may well be "a victim of patriarchy"; but she&#39;s not still constrained by patriarchal relations. In the direct sense, anyway.

She may be affected, directly or indirectly, by sexist social structures, or many other things. But she&#39;s simply no longer constrained by the set of relations that make her socially and economically dependent on her spouse.

You’re completely right and its good that someone finally articulate what patriarchy means here. It seems that YKTMX is utterly confused about what patriarchy is. He’s taken it as some sort of ahistorical institution that exists outside of economic conditions, something totally incompatible with the Marxist understanding of social organization and structure.


Amusing [email protected]

There&#39;s is a massive difference between a formal political measure, like the right to vote, and a fundamental structural change, like some of the gains won by the women&#39;s movement. One simply masks over societal structures, the other actually changes them.

Affirmative action, though, is in the second category. It does go some way to fundamentally altering society. In the manner that the gains made by the women&#39;s movement did, that is.

That&#39;s not "a rather trite liberal" way of viewing things; it&#39;s a crucial distinction that a self-proclaimed Marxist should be able to understand.
Right.

I suggest that YKTMX read the sections in the German Ideology on the distinction between political emancipation and human emancipation as he’s clearly missed a significant Marxist distinction and doesn’t seem to understand why economic power rather than formal political equality is central.

Like all institutionalized social relations, patriarchy exists to consolidate the mode of production, not arbitrarily.


Rosa

I cannot be bothered to read any more of the pathetic excuse for socialist analysis you have inflicted on us AS.


I imagine it is probably really painful to have to read something from a Marxist perspective when your entire ideological position is contrary to the most basic thesis that comprise Marxism.

Really Rosa for someone who makes a huge deal out of rejecting Hegelian mysticism its quite ironic how blind you are to the deep extent of mysticism in your own arguments.

Can anyone in the SWP ever be bothered to actually read Marx and Engels or is it just you two who can’t?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

TC, I thought I banged on about things too much, but I take my Dutch Cap off to you!!


Rosa appears to make wild claims about ‘sexism’ and ‘stereotypes’ in a clearly liberal manner without being able to relate it to any sort of Marxist or materialist analysis of whats actually going on

Correct, I was merely responding to ill-informed attcks on the SWP -- to which you have added you ha'peeny worth.

Had I wanted to go on at the length you have attempted, I might have chosen to do so; but you need to read my earliest comments to see why i did not.

You seem to help yourself to the word 'materialism' a lot, but fail to say what you mean by it.

This means that much of what you say is a waste of time; like this:


Strippers don’t reinforce “regressive gender stereotypes” at all, in any way. What ‘gender stereotypes” are you thinking of and how would they possibly “reinforce” them? By what mechanism does one ‘reinforce’ a stereotype?

Now I take it you are a sophisticated user of the English language, but them i have to ask, which word do you not understand. Once you understand these terms, our point should become clear to you.

[I cannot speak for YKTMX, but I can only apologise for assuming English was not a problem for RevLefters.]

And, what makes you think things run by means of 'mechanisms'?

That does not sound very Marxist to me.

In which case, it is you missy who is not being the materialist here.

I would like to devote more time to the other things you allege, but I fear I might fall asleep in th.....

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 05:06 pm
Janitors and people who maintain facilities and what not in working order are workers if they&#39;re performing a necessary function that the area they&#39;re taking care of would be less productive if they didn&#39;t, as this amounts to adding value.

Likewise people are vastly more productive when they&#39;re educated so vocational teachers are arguably adding value.

Academics though are clearly not workers, they&#39;re members of the ideological classes.
Erm, what do you mean by "value"? Because I am using the Marxist concept, ie, "value" as a synonim for "exchange value" - so, never mind how important some activity is, if it does not result in sellable commodities, it does not produce value (and, conversely, never mind how useless or even noxious a commodity is, it does have value and so working in its production is producing value). Otherwise I fear we would be "moralising" economy, which we shouldn&#39;t.

Also, your concept of social classes seems strange. These should not be understood as ocupational groups, but as social strata. Being a bank clerk instead of a welder is practically accidental in the life of a person, and I would bet there is wide social mobility between those groups - which, of course, does not happen between social classes. If to survive I depend on selling my labour force, I will sell it as opportunity comes, and I doubt very much quitting a job and taking another could change my social class.

And, of course, the working class is not homogeneous, much in the contrary. Wide variations of income, mentality, organisation degree, social prestige, education level, etc., should be expected.

Luís Henrique

[Okocim]

The SWP have utterly lost their way; teaming up with the likes of Hizbollah, Hamas, Taliban, Hizb Ut-Tahrir supporters, sharing a platform with anti-Semitic, homophobic, misogynistic, religious zealots.

I know a lot of SWP members, they excuse "un-socialist" comments from their muslims "allies", they say there&#39;s nothing wrong with these people who disagree with us on so many very important things. They see only the short term gains being made by RESPECT, not the overall picture. Even within RESPECT we&#39;re seeing sides being taken (evidence (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=10591)), we&#39;re seeing Galloway&#39;s stance on abortion not being addressed, we&#39;re seeing muslim members objecting to inclusion of policies on LGBT issues at their conference.

it&#39;s disgusting what the SWP are doing and I think this is all going to go horribly wrong for them pretty soon. and don&#39;t even start on their stance on things like faith schools; I don&#39;t know about their ideas about strip clubs but if it&#39;s anything like faith schools then it&#39;s just more idiocy from the SWP.

[Guerrilla22]

Can we believe anything you ever say -- not that we ever have.

Well apparently others feel the same way, since two other people posted agreeing with my statement that you&#39;re annoying.


They are making allegations that have been answered;

You keep asserting this, but it&#39;s not true. People have made statements and posted sources and you chose to ignore them and base your arguments on name calling, which doesn&#39;t say much about you. I&#39;m mystified as to how you became a mod also.

[TC]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 30, 2007 06:41 pm
[b]TC, I thought I banged on about things too much, but I take mYou seem to help yourself to the word &#39;materialism&#39; a lot, but fail to say what you mean by it.

Now I take it you are a sophisticated user of the English language, but them i have to ask, which word do you not understand. Once you understand these terms, our point should become clear to you.
...

And, what makes you think things run by means of &#39;mechanisms&#39;?

That does to sound very Marxist to me.

In which case, it is you missy who is not being the materialist here.



I would be surprised that Rosa doesn’t know what “materialist” means in the Marxist context except that its been made increasingly clear that cliffitism is neither Marxist nor Trotskyist.

I was going to ignore this post since in just felt sorry for Rosa but then i thought i should use it as a chance to illustrate why what Rosa is doing isn&#39;t Marxism and how her conceptual understanding is flawed at the most basic level.

-----------------------------------------

A materialist explanation of the rise of capitalism in England for instance, might be that the demand for wool in Europe led landowners to evict peasants in order to turn their fields to pasture for sheep, and this happened to coincide with the merchant class generating huge amounts of gold from the Americas and bringing it back to Europe, and the combination of the landless but moneyed merchant class and the poor but unattached ex-peasant class created the material conditions for the former to invest their new wealth in mass production, employing the later as a labour force.

Marxists and other materialist social scientists and historians can then assess such an explanation scientifically by seeing if those material conditions in fact existed, if they existed on a scale which could account for the rise of capitalism in that manner, or whether there was in fact, an explanation more consistent with the material phenomenon, the empirical data.


A mystical, metaphysical, or otherwise non-materialist explanation for the rise of capitalism in England, alternatively, might be that the values taught in the Church of England of protestant ingenuity, hard work, and thriftiness, meant that English people worked harder for less and were more inventive than their European counterparts.

Such an explanation is impossible to assess scientifically because it grants explanatory power to mechanisms that do not exist on a physical level, which is to say, they are immaterial. Marxists would dismiss such an explanation as obviously incorrect because Marxist historical materialism is the thesis that the physical, material conditions, chiefly including mode of production and relations of productive forces and economy, can account for the whole of social structure and social change.

While people can provide non-material descriptions of social phenomenon, these descriptions are not functional explanations. Napoleon’s remark to the effect that ‘God is always on the side with the most guns’ is one such pre-Marxist articulation of this fact.


What you’ve done Rosa, is given a non-materialist description of how you think strip clubs can cause the ‘degradation’ of women, just like Weber might give a non-materialist description of how he thinks Protestantism can cause the development of feudalism into capitalism (except in that, Weber’s description was at least superficially plausible whereas yours is not). You have not given a materially based functional explanation for your position, so your position is contrary to Marxism.

As a general rule, if you want to argue that something does something and you cannot describe a physical, causal mechanism for how it does that, you’re appealing to a mystical explanation dogmatically as utopian socialists and conservatives do, rather than offering materialist explanation scientifically, as Marxists do.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

TC:


I would be surprised that Rosa doesn’t know what “materialist” means in the Marxist context except that its been made increasingly clear that cliffitism is neither Marxist nor Trotskyist.

Eh? :blink:


I was going to ignore this post since in just felt sorry for Rosa but then i thought i should use it as a chance to illustrate why what Rosa is doing isn&#39;t Marxism and how her conceptual understanding is flawed at the most basic level.

Ah, but is there a &#39;mechanism&#39; for this?

You seem to like &#39;mechanisms&#39;.

I do too, but only in things like clocks and cars. Perhaps you think strippers are like clocks?

---------------------------

Anyway, thanks for all that detail that I had to ignore.

Post some more please. I need all the practice I can get in ignoring irrelevant waffle. :)

But this caught my eye:


As a general rule, if you want to argue that something does something and you cannot describe a physical, causal mechanism for how it does that, you’re appealing to a mystical explanation dogmatically as utopian socialists and conservatives do, rather than offering materialist explanation scientifically, as Marxists do.

So you are a crude materialist, after all?

I knew it. :P

Now, would you like to tell us the physical mechanism that made you say all this?

Don&#39;t tell me you mislaid the brain scans again&#33; :o

Tut, Tut&#33;

You are going to get kicked out of Reductionists-R-Us if you carry on like this, missy&#33;

It&#39;s a good job you have me to look after you&#33;

But do I get any thanks? :(

[YKTMX]

The patriarchy is an economic phenomenon, economic independence *is* independence from patriarchy.

No, it isn&#39;t. If patriarchy is "purely" an economic phenomenon, arising merely from capitalist relations of production, then patriarchy, the systematic oppression of the female sex by the male sex, would not pre-date capitalism - but it does. This is the kind of dunderheaded nonsense that gives Marxism a bad name, presuming, as it does, that human history began with the French Revolution and the Enlightenment. If this is true, what were the previous centuries of oppression and brutality experienced disproportionately by the female of the species, a mirage?

Does it turn out that tens of thousands of women were not burned at the stake for "witchcraft"? Does it turn out that all major religious formations, which have existed for centuries upon centuries, do not in some way subordinate women to men? Does it turn out that mass Rape is not something practiced in nearly every human war in history where one side has conquered the other? Is the mass disenfranchisement of women (as well as Slaves etc) in Ancient Greece and other pre-capitalist societies merely an "accident" of history?

Indeed, all the evidence suggests that not only does patriarchy pre-date capitalism, it is also rather contradictory to the goal of Capital. There is every evidence that the advanced capitalist states see patriarchy, at least in the narrow economic sense that you have defined it, are opposed to the oppression of women. Women, for example, have filled gaps in the labour force during times of crisis.


Social structure is a result of economic and political structure

Vulgar Stalinist nonsense.

Here&#39;s your man Engels:


Political, juridical, philosophical, religious, literary, artistic, etc., development is based on economic development. But all these react upon one another and also upon the economic base. It is not that the economic position is the cause and alone active, while everything else only has a passive effect. There is, rather, interaction on the basis of the economic necessity, which ultimately always asserts itself.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...rs/94_01_25.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/letters/94_01_25.htm)

You see the "but" here is the most important word. No one doubts that economics have an influence on the political and the social, but rather than seeing the these factors as facts automatically "resulting" from economics, we need to see it as Engels does, as a process of interaction whereby the Economic influences the political and vice-versa.

To assume as TC does that "patriarchy" arises fully formed when capitalism does is ridiculous. Rather, racist and sexist political structures that exist before capitalism become part of the new bourgeois order when it emerges. The bourgeoisie discards old ideas it doesn&#39;t needs and reclaims and re-asserts those that it does.

And, of course, it also re-imagines and changes these relics of the past. Most obviously, there is the focus on the "scientific" aspects of gender and racial inequality, as opposed to the more metaphysical explanations used by religious or Ancient societies.

So, of course, racism and sexism are different under capitalism - experienced differently, enforced differently - but to imagine them as "creations" of the bourgeoisie is really to misunderstand Marx and ignore human history.


These types of totally anti-Marxist beliefs are what happen when you don’t actually do any independent research and you just listen to cadre speakers meetings.

Is there any possibility of you toning down the sectarianism? And judging by your past, your "independent research" consists of absorbing the &#39;Collected Works of Joseph Stalin&#39;.


they are rather created by the economic base in order to reinforce the mode of production, patriarchy is no exception to this. Really this is like basic Marxist social theory, its shocking that you think you’re a Marxist but you don’t know this

"Created by the economic base" - really, this sort of stuff would make the worst Soviet intellectuals cringe.

Could the old man have had the Clown in mind when he wrote this, seemingly prophetic, phrase:


Marx and I are ourselves partly to blame for the fact that the younger people sometimes lay more stress on the economic side than is due to it. We had to emphasise the main principle vis-a-vis our adversaries, who denied it, and we had not always the time, the place or the opportunity to give their due to the other factors involved in the interaction. But when it came to presenting a section of history, that is, to applying the theory in practice, it was a different matter and there no error was permissible.76


link (http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj65/rees.htm)



Patriarchy is the concrete, material relations of production in gender divided domestic and public labour spheres giving patriarchal husbands and fathers control over their wives and daughters by way of their superior socioeconomic position, control of finances and social access

The problem with this is that you&#39;ve given no reason why this should be You&#39;ve merely asserted that it exists without explaining why it does.

Why did "having a penis", as you put it, give one an advantage when the bourgeois class was being created. According to you, the bourgeois class "created" patriarchy, but how could they have "created" patriarchy when patriarchy existed in the formation of that social class?

Indeed, what is the material basis for patriarchy in advanced bourgeois society? It seems clear to me that Capital has no interest whatever in seeing half the population arbitrarily excluded from the labour force. Furthermore, if racism and sexism arise from "material factors" only (I say only because, as a Marxist, I regard material factors as crucial) why is it that levels of racism and sexism differ from one bourgeois state to the next.

Why is it that in the Islamic Republic of Iran, a society with a bourgeois economic order and backward political one, the position of women is much worse than in Britain, probably the oldest bourgeois state in the World.

Judging back TC&#39;s purely "economic" guidelines (The Idiot&#39;s Guide To Historial Materialism), and "patriarchy" is just an expression of the bourgeois order, why is Iran more racist and sexist that the uber-bourgeois state of Britain?


It is not some magical abstract thing that affects all women on a biological level no matter how socially and economically powerful they are, but a real form of material oppression that affects the majority of women based on their actual social relations.


I agree with this.