Female Exploitation: A Marxist Solution

[Comrade Martin]

I thought it up while posting in the "Pornography and Female Exploitation" thread. Obviously, pornography sets either an unreasonable or unacceptable standard for beauty which reinforces Capitalist social norms that turn women to bulimia and annorexia nervousa and a crazed desire to be "thin" and "beautiful." It's a negative thing, and we can't have that in a Socialist society, nor in the final stage of Communism, it just goes without saying.

So, what is the Marxist solution to this predicament? We can't continue to market sex via pornography, and illegalizing it, as experienced in China and the Soviet Union (Among other Socialist nations) just causes high prostitution and rape rates, so what IS the Marxist solution?

I believe it it to "humanize" sex, as I put it. Essentially, to desensitize it. Sex needs to become mainstream and fully acceptable to everyone. It needs to be open and socially acceptable everywhere. Children should be taught very early on that sex is normal and natural, and that they will one day be able to do it, also stressing the negative effects of pregnancy and the importance of birth control methods. Only in this way can we truly respond to the sex question, I think, from a Marxist perspective.

What do comrades think?

[KC]

Obviously, pornography sets either an unreasonable or unacceptable standard for beauty which reinforces Capitalist social norms that turn women to bulimia and annorexia nervousa and a crazed desire to be "thin" and "beautiful."

The reason that the standard is set so high for women is because it is easier to sell products to these women when their self esteem is low. It creates a void in these women's minds and suggests that these products (make-up, diet pills, diet plans, exercise equipment, gym memberships, etc...) will fill that void. This is caused, and even promoted, by capitalism.

It's a negative thing, and we can't have that in a Socialist society, nor in the final stage of Communism, it just goes without saying.

You are looking at it backwards. It is the economic system that creates this situation (capitalism) and not the other way around. There will be no need to prohibit this kind of behaviour because there will be no reason for people to perpetuate it.

So, what is the Marxist solution to this predicament? We can't continue to market sex via pornography, and illegalizing it, as experienced in China and the Soviet Union (Among other Socialist nations) just causes high prostitution and rape rates, so what IS the Marxist solution?

Well, the Marxist soclution to this predicament would be a change in the economic system, which is at the root of the problem. If you are going to talk about what is to be done in consolidated socialist states, then you would be looking for the Leninist solution.

I believe it it to "humanize" sex, as I put it. Essentially, to desensitize it. Sex needs to become mainstream and fully acceptable to everyone. It needs to be open and socially acceptable everywhere. Children should be taught very early on that sex is normal and natural, and that they will one day be able to do it, also stressing the negative effects of pregnancy and the importance of birth control methods. Only in this way can we truly respond to the sex question, I think, from a Marxist perspective.

I agree that this should be done. However, I don't think that this would solve the problem that you laid out earlier in your post. This is because we must look at the economic situation from a global perspective. As long as capitalism is the driving force of the world, the situation of sexuality will remain relatively unchanged. Sure, the ideas you have suggested are great, but where is the gain in ruining an immensely profitable market?

[Comrade Martin]

I think you're very very mistaken if you really believe that the situation is so black and white as to how conditions determine consciousness. Economic relations are the root of all things, yes, but the contemporary economic situation is VERY much affected by previouc economic situations. After all, even if the Leninist mode was wrong, you still have to realize that the social revolution will not touch everyone, and indeed, many questions, such as this one, will not be answered with it. As Marxists, we can't religiously believe that social revolution can truly just instantly change everyone's mindset. There must be a gradual change in some areas, or else it would be so easy to get to Communism that we wouldn't even need Socialism.

Old Capitalist social norms WILL linger in Socialism, and there must be a solution, other than simply saying "Oh, economic conditions will change everything." Pointing to the global Capitalist system, as you have, you must realize that there will also, in addition to the lingering after-effects of the passing Capitalist modes of thought, be influences pressing in from the outside. We can't just abolish pornography and call it a done deal, because when one fine comrade goes on a trip to America or logs on to the internet, he's going to find pornography, and, because it is not openly discussed in the Socialist nation, it will become like an insidious virus.

[KC]

After all, even if the Leninist mode was wrong, you still have to realize that the social revolution will not touch everyone, and indeed, many questions, such as this one, will not be answered with it.

I don't know what you mean by this. What do you mean by "social revolution"? And by "Leninist mode" I presume you mean state socialism?

As Marxists, we can't religiously believe that social revolution can truly just instantly change everyone's mindset. There must be a gradual change in some areas, or else it would be so easy to get to Communism that we wouldn't even need Socialism.

Socialism is the process of transition from Capitalism to Communism. A communist society will have already answered these problems, as the gradual change that you speak of happens during socialism. Everyone's mindset will not be instantly changed, no, but since the prevailing economic system will have changed to no longer promoting the commodification of sex, then this change will be very smooth.

Old Capitalist social norms WILL linger in Socialism, and there must be a solution, other than simply saying "Oh, economic conditions will change everything."

But the problem is in capitalism; it is not in people. It is the profit-motive that creates this problem. It is the commodification of sex that creates this problem. It is an economic problem. It is not a "social problem".

Pointing to the global Capitalist system, as you have, you must realize that there will also, in addition to the lingering after-effects of the passing Capitalist modes of thought, be influences pressing in from the outside.

I assume you speak of Leninist socialism, which I do not fully support as a means by which to achieve communism. I believe that as material conditions arise in first world countries and revolutions occur, there will not be much more outside influence as most imperialist nations will be the first to have communist revolutions.

We can't just abolish pornography and call it a done deal, because when one fine comrade goes on a trip to America or logs on to the internet, he's going to find pornography, and, because it is not openly discussed in the Socialist nation, it will become like an insidious virus.

I never suggested abolishing it. I suggested a change of the economic system as a solution.

[Comrade Martin]

I don't know what you mean by this. What do you mean by "social revolution"? And by "Leninist mode" I presume you mean state socialism?

"State Socialism" is a poor term no matter what brand of Marxist you are. No matter what sort of Socialism you envision, if it doesn't have a state (And by state one would mean some sort of mechanism for the establishment of Proletarian power...) it isn't Socialism. The question is, how is the state run, and most particularly, who runs it?

And by a social revolution, this is what I mean: Changing the class management of state from Bourgeois to Proletarian norms. This isn't the same as the economic revolution, which puts the economy itself in to the hands of the Proletariat. Combined, you have Socialism.

Socialism is the process of transition from Capitalism to Communism. A communist society will have already answered these problems, as the gradual change that you speak of happens during socialism. Everyone's mindset will not be instantly changed, no, but since the prevailing economic system will have changed to no longer promoting the commodification of sex, then this change will be very smooth.

But you fail to take in to account the very things I mentioned, which I get in to below.

But the problem is in capitalism; it is not in people. It is the profit-motive that creates this problem. It is the commodification of sex that creates this problem. It is an economic problem. It is not a "social problem".

But it is a social problem. Not every problem can be fixed solely by changing economic conditions. What about people with genetic mental disorders? Or what about people who leave the Socialist nation as a tourist, visit the Capitalist nation and witness the commodification of sex and become bound up in that mode of thought, return to the Socialist nation, and spread such ideals among the populous? Only if you strictly controlled emigration and immigration (Ridiculous and un-Marxist as it would be) could you keep such "subversive" concepts out of your society. You're still treating this in such a black and white context.

I assume you speak of Leninist socialism, which I do not fully support as a means by which to achieve communism. I believe that as material conditions arise in first world countries and revolutions occur, there will not be much more outside influence as most imperialist nations will be the first to have communist revolutions.

History doesn't tend to favor such assumptions. What's worse, we're in a stage in world development where the Proletariat "proper" (And by this it is meant those who are exploited the most and perform the "hardest" labor such as mining, factory labor, and so forth) exists mainly in the "third world" (To use such a crude term), while in the "first world" there is primarily a large proletariat engaged in factory farm work, service sectors, and many other professions all of which require very little labor and recieve much good pay. We have what one might call a large "labor aristocracy" in the first world, making revolution exceedingly less likely. History will show this to be true, particularly the last 100 years.

I never suggested abolishing it. I suggested a change of the economic system as a solution.

Too flimsy; it needs more elucidation and consideration. If the world was so simplistic, these wouldn't be problems in the first place.

[pandora]

These topics were discussed before, there are several different parts to sexual exploitation of women you mentioned. Most men make the mistake of looking at pornography only in terms of the women being beautiful (usually artificially, or with staging) and therefore in terms of competition, an unattainable goal for women feeding into low values of self-esteem.

This drive of competition among women pushing towards market capitalism is true of course in advertising in the selling of products, and in the garbage that passes for "popular culture" according to the media.

However, in looking at the sexual exploitation of pornography, prostitution, and sexual roles of women there are many other factors of far greater impact:

1. Transmission of visual reference of women as sexual tools subservient to men. ( Look at most pornography and it reduces women to objects rather than subjects, this dehumanizes them into a product not to admire, but to abuse and use.

2. Abuse of sex workers in general. This is alienation of labor in the extreme where the workers become psychologically detached from their own bodies. Studies have shown that sex workers predominantly tend to be victims of child abuse and mostly childhood sexual abuse. Their ability to "detach" from their physical bodies allows them to allow their bodies to become objects of consumption.

Many people have a rosy idea of sex work, sex work tends to involve mass production, the mass production in this situation involves either repeated intercourse in such a fashion that it can cause physical repercussions, or "dancing" with a great number of "customers" that causes alienation from the means of production, aka the dancer's body.

3. Abuse of workers in terms as a labor market with few rights. There are members here promoting organizations such as Exotic Dancers Union. The reality is there is a great deal of corruption and organized crime involved with the sex industry. These organizations threaten and kill women and sometimes men that try to stand up to them. Over 1 million women, some men, and children go missing each year in the global sex trade. These individuals are essentially sold into slavery. From a Marxist perspective this is a huge labor issue, from a humanist perspective this is a huge moral issue, in that we regard ourselves in many ways beyond the age of slavery. As Marxists we know that this is not true and there are many subtle levels of exploitation. But the kidnapping of women and children for the global sex trade, as sanctified by the U.N. in locations such as Bosnia for service of global troops is the lowest form of human indignity.

4. Many global 500 companies make a huge profit on the sex trade figures such as $500 million annually just for single companies such as Clear Channel and GM have come up, with no public reprocussions.

From a Marxist perspective this kind of exploitation of sex workers could not continue, we are speaking of billions of dollars in stolen labor. There needs to be a radical departure from the status quo. The present state of the industry would have to be entirely dismantled and restructured in a completely different form, not money based.

Lily Burana who wrote "Strip City: A Strippers Journey Across the U.S." said that as long as stripping is connected to money, that is earning a paycheck it will always be a tool of exploitation of women, no matter how you slice it.

If women chose to dance erotically, and explore this form of dance in a public arena this is fine, it is even fine to receive tributes of affection from admiring men, this has been going on back to John the Baptist, however, these gifts need not be monetary, and if these women had availability to education you would see a system very different, perhaps closer to Geisha or Indian Temple Dancers where skill and intelligence were required rather than just sexual servitude.

Some of these dancers in ages past, it might be remembered became very powerful heads of state, especially in India. It may be that the current frame of prostitution and subjecation.

[KC]

"State Socialism" is a poor term no matter what brand of Marxist you are. No matter what sort of Socialism you envision, if it doesn't have a state (And by state one would mean some sort of mechanism for the establishment of Proletarian power...) it isn't Socialism. The question is, how is the state run, and most particularly, who runs it?

You raise an interesting point, but misinterpreted what I meant. I probably should've said "consolidated socialist state".

But it is a social problem. Not every problem can be fixed solely by changing economic conditions. What about people with genetic mental disorders? Or what about people who leave the Socialist nation as a tourist, visit the Capitalist nation and witness the commodification of sex and become bound up in that mode of thought, return to the Socialist nation, and spread such ideals among the populous? Only if you strictly controlled emigration and immigration (Ridiculous and un-Marxist as it would be) could you keep such "subversive" concepts out of your society. You're still treating this in such a black and white context.

I don't see this as a problem at all. Once material conditions in the first world arise and there is revolution in the first world, the rest should quickly follow. I am not talking about the Leninist version of long-term socialism. I am talking about the rapid succession of revolutions around the world in a short amount of time.

History doesn't tend to favor such assumptions. What's worse, we're in a stage in world development where the Proletariat "proper" (And by this it is meant those who are exploited the most and perform the "hardest" labor such as mining, factory labor, and so forth) exists mainly in the "third world" (To use such a crude term), while in the "first world" there is primarily a large proletariat engaged in factory farm work, service sectors, and many other professions all of which require very little labor and recieve much good pay. We have what one might call a large "labor aristocracy" in the first world, making revolution exceedingly less likely. History will show this to be true, particularly the last 100 years.

Then you aren't familiar with Marxist economics and the declining rate of profit.

[Comrade Martin]

Pandora, are you suggesting a continuation of exotic dancing in Socialism albeit without monetary payment of them or something? Really, with my suggestion, you wouldn't really need specifically exotic dancers anyway, at leas theoretically. They'd just be dancers.

And Lazar,

I don't see this as a problem at all. Once material conditions in the first world arise and there is revolution in the first world, the rest should quickly follow. I am not talking about the Leninist version of long-term socialism. I am talking about the rapid succession of revolutions around the world in a short amount of time.

Assuming that the first world will be the home of revolution to begin with, which doesn't seem overly likely.

Then you aren't familiar with Marxist economics and the declining rate of profit.

If you aren't familiar with the concept of the labor aristocracy and Imperialism, nor the decrease in revolutionary fervor of workers in the Imperialist nations due to their admittance in to this said aristocracy (Which is well-paid and recieves many benefits, particularly thanks to cheap products made in the super-exploited nations of the world, in order to make it servile and unrevolutionary), its pretty clear who lacks an understanding of Marxist economics.

[pandora]

If the history of Thai and Middle Eastern dance is any indication there will always be an element of naughtiness in some dance, away from the other form of the art which experiences the body, but not its sexuality.

Human beings are sexual creatures, and young men and women enjoy exploring this sexuality in the form of dance.

But no longer would there be a bunch of greedy capitalist swine extorting this and making it into something dirty and shameful attached to money and greed.

No longer would young women and men dance for old men for money, they would dance for an audience of their choosing.

As far as the other arguement, right now we are stuck in a market of overproduction to continue profit sharing which is unsustainable for us and the planet. The amount of waste in this system is abominable while many go without food and shelter. If all needs could be met at 70% of the current production levels the planet would sigh a big release.

You are still basing your antique ideas on levels of income and production. I think we are reaching a new level in Marxism where the words sustainable development enter into the picture of common good.

[Comrade Martin]

I think sustainable development has always been important to a Marxist approach, but we are in a time when the problems of ignoring this phrase are closer to being realized. Regardless, who knows precisely when people will realize this as a whole and do something about it? The only truth to be told is that at the rate Capitalism consumes and wastes, it has doomed itself, either to proletarian revolution or to the destruction of an inhabitable Earth.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Comrade Martin
If you aren't familiar with the concept of the labor aristocracy and Imperialism, nor the decrease in revolutionary fervor of workers in the Imperialist nations due to their admittance in to this said aristocracy (Which is well-paid and recieves many benefits, particularly thanks to cheap products made in the super-exploited nations of the world, in order to make it servile and unrevolutionary), it's pretty clear who lacks an understanding of Marxist economics.

Yeah, it's you.

The "Labor Aristocracy", the "Middle Class", and Marxist Theory

You are making the assumption that Lenin's ideas about imperialism and the "labor aristocracy" are a "development" of Marxism.

They're not.

[Comrade Martin]

Sad as it may be, its an undeniable fact. How else do you account for the high wages and living standards in the major Capitalist nations which, given the Marxist precept that Capitalists absolutely want profit (, is what makes the Proletariat more servile and less likely to revolt? Is there a theory other than the "labor aristocracy" (Which I never implied was a seperate class, merely a section of the Proletariat which is paid in such a way as to curb revolutionary desires on a mass scale) which uses class and materialist explanations for the lack of revolutionary fervor in the major Capitalist nations?

You raise the question on that link about why Capitalists would "bribe" workers when their goal is profit. Essentially, it isn't so much a bribing as it is bending for the Proletariat, avert revolution, and continue being ABLE to make profits. If the Capitalists had not subjecting themselves to union scrutiny long ago, revolution would have been right around the corner. Realizing this, our most advanced Capitalist states, and I mention states because it was the Bourgeois states which enforced these policies, allowed workers' wages to rise, and with that rise in wages came an increased ability to purchase. Consumption rose, and the crisis of overproduction (Obviously I'm referring to the worst of these crises, the Great Depression) ended when overproduction was no longer a problem at that time, and the working class was much satiated. How else do you account not only for the rise in wages (Facilitated ONLY with compliance from the Bourgeois state via the forming of unions and union action) as well as the implementation of various policies for the Proletariat (Welfare, social security, etc.) at the overall EXPENSE of the Bourgeoisie via taxes? It's a very complicated situation when you reject Imperialism and reject the concept of the labor aristocracy, because, truly, there is no wholly Marxist explanation to fill that gap. Now should I find one, I would be willing to change my mind. But to this point, I have had no reason to do so.

-----

But we're getting off track. This is a topic about Marxist solutions to female exploitation in pornography and such. If this topic is done for on that subject, perhaps another topic should be made to carry on the above discussion elseware?

[Martyr]

I thought in the communist manifesto woman were to give freely babies to the society AKA be whores

[C_Rasmussen]

Originally posted by Comrade Martin@Jan 3 2006, 12:54 AM
I thought it up while posting in the "Pornography and Female Exploitation" thread. Obviously, pornography sets either an unreasonable or unacceptable standard for beauty which reinforces Capitalist social norms that turn women to bulimia and annorexia nervousa and a crazed desire to be "thin" and "beautiful." It's a negative thing, and we can't have that in a Socialist society, nor in the final stage of Communism, it just goes without saying.

So, what is the Marxist solution to this predicament? We can't continue to market sex via pornography, and illegalizing it, as experienced in China and the Soviet Union (Among other Socialist nations) just causes high prostitution and rape rates, so what IS the Marxist solution?

I believe it it to "humanize" sex, as I put it. Essentially, to desensitize it. Sex needs to become mainstream and fully acceptable to everyone. It needs to be open and socially acceptable everywhere. Children should be taught very early on that sex is normal and natural, and that they will one day be able to do it, also stressing the negative effects of pregnancy and the importance of birth control methods. Only in this way can we truly respond to the sex question, I think, from a Marxist perspective.

What do comrades think?

Absolutely agreed. Not only does it make women feel like shit but at the same time it can put quite a bit of stress on a guy. Why you may ask? Well it puts unnecessary expectations on them to be as big as the guy viewed in the porno or be as good (or even better) looking as the guy in the magazine or video. Personally I believe that it doesn't really benefit many people.