I feel it only appropriate to mention the analogies and contrasts between "prostitution" and the traditional institutions of marriage.
Results 21 to 40 of 41
thank you camarada! i always enjoy your post and views! and I think I will try that on my group meetings. I will try to bring in some prostitutes.
we need more revolutions and less "isms"
I feel it only appropriate to mention the analogies and contrasts between "prostitution" and the traditional institutions of marriage.
Who said I'm being "permissive, even to the detriment of someone's dignity"?This is an important topic. While I don't agree with criminilization of prostitutes, I get infuriated when some fucking anarchist tries to outdo me in social liberalism by saying there is absolutely no difference between someone packing shelves or someone opening their legs for someone they've never met before.
Sex is very personal, and as Bob Kindles said- where are the viable alternatives?
I believe in criminalising organised prostitution where surplus value is made but allowing individual acts of prostitution.
Legalised pimping is about as exploitative as you can get.
But you know it's cool to be really permissive, even to the detriment of someones personal dignity.
After all, I call for unions and legalization just so that prostitutes can at least have a means to fight for better conditions just like any other worker. Or do you prefer to let it stay "illegalized", which would do nothing to eliminate it, as long as capitalist monetary relations exist, thus depriving them and allowing them to be in a more easier position to be exploited even more?
Sex work, when you get down to it, is like any work: We are exploited either way and have someone telling us what to do or we don't get paid/eat.
Unless you are one of those petit-bourgoeisie prostitutes that CDL mentioned.
If to you prostitution is "shameful"; than so should all wage slavery be. We are the capitalist's "whores" doing what they want, getting exploited from our labor, because if not we die.
In the end, "shame" is a revolutionary emotion.
Although I too, believe that "pimps", etc should be eliminated; but, criminalization does nothing to eliminate that (i.e., in the US it's illegal but we still have both!). Only the abolishment of wage-slavery will.
SO the question is: Do you really think the criminalization of prostitution is going to solve the "prostitution question" (whether in a capitalist or "socialist" society?)?
Last edited by Raúl Duke; 8th February 2008 at 10:45.
"My heart sings for you both. Imagine it singing. la la la la."- Hannah Kay
"if you keep calling average working people idiots i am sure they will be more apt to listen to what you have to say. "-bcbm
"Sometimes false consciousness can be more destructive than apathy, just like how sometimes, doing nothing is actually better than doing the wrong thing."- Robocommie
"The ruling class would tremble, and the revolution would be all but assured." -Explosive Situation, on the Revleft Merry Prankster bus
Interesting point - arguably, marriage is similar to prostitution, as it derives (at least in part, and to varying degrees) from economic necessity, especially in societies where women are unable to find work outside the home. Or, as Emma Goldman put it:
I'm probably going to attract a lot of flak here, but arent the motives and opportunities for work in the sex industry provided by capitalism?
That is to say, that without capitalism, it's unlikely that people would choose to enter those professions. At the risk of sounding elitist, I'd like to think that the motives for prostitution, stripping, porno acting etc would eventually ''die off'' in a post revolutionary scenario.
I think prostitution is one of the most degrading things, however if done individually to keep your house and keep paying the bills etc. in an Ideal world there would be no selling of ones body but we're not in an ideal world therefore we need to work with what we've got. did you guys see footage of dutch prostitutes protesting under the "SEX WORKERS OF THE WORLD UNITE!" posters? That brings me to my next point, prostitutes strippers etc. are workers and thus fall under our blanket they deserve the protection Industrial staff get.
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -8.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.41
theweekylspectrum.wordpress.com - my Blog
"The limitation of riots, moral questions aside, is that they cannot win
and their participants know it. Hence, rioting is not revolutionary but
reactionary because it invites defeat. It involves an emotional
catharsis, but it must be followed by a sense of futility."
-- Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
No, I think it's a valid consideration, even a strong possibility. This might be something we have to deal with. I will say though that I'm sure there are plenty of sex workers, especially in porn but not exclusively who enjoy their jobs. Porn differentiates from prostitution in two ways - first one need not actually interact with the consumer (and it's just plain less work), and second it can be reproduced indefinitely, especially with the internet. The production need not go up with the demand, so to speak, as much work is needed to provide for three people as is needed to provide for a billion (save basically trivial network access and computer system costs - we're talking about the woman, and again it's worth remembering, occasionally the man I'm sure).
Also, while capitalism might necessitate sex work, is it not possible that other societal factors one might(/should) want to get rid of cause the demonization of, and perhaps, hence aversion from it?
Last edited by jake williams; 9th February 2008 at 02:14.
Capitalism does not "necessitate" porn - erotic imagery, showing couples engaged in a range of sexual positions, dating to ancient civilization has been found through archaeological surveys. It's only recently that porn has become more widely available, for every social group. This should not surprise us and is certainly not a bad thing - sexual desire is an urge experienced by every human being. People will continue to demand erotic images in a post-revolutionary society and I think it will be viable to provide such a good without forcing anyone to engage in the production of pornographic media - even in a capitalist society, amateur pornography is produced and made available to anyone with an internet connection, with the full knowledge of the participants, despite the lack of financial reward.
That is not entirely true. Most evidence points to failry strong social networks between sex workers in which they communicate and share stories and experiences on a regular basis.
Would you care to source this evidence?
Competition between, for example, dancers at a strip club is obviously much more intense than competition between cooks at a McDonald's.
"Getting a job, finding a mate, having a place to live, finding a creative outlet. Life is a war of attrition. You have to stay active on all fronts. It's one thing after another. I've tried to control a chaotic universe. And it's a losing battle. But I can't let go. I've tried, but I can't." - Harvey Pekar
It was just a brain slip - I meant to say "capitalism might necessitate [otherwise unwanted] sex work". I agree completely with what you're saying here.
No, prostitution should not be legal! We should train prostitutes in other jobs.
Engels wrote to imagine an entire generation that has never known the possibility to buy the love of a woman. Truly that is a beautiful thing. We must not make sex a commodity. That is alienation, that is literal prostitution of your labor. The Soviet Union sought to train women in new jobs, just as we should. Checkout the work of revolutionary fighter Alexandra Kollantai:
"Kollantai was anxious that once the war was over, women should not just go back into the isolation of the family unit. For her the Zhenotdel had a crucial role to play in raising consciousness and drawing women into the running of society, as well as representing their interests within the party and the government. The work of the Zhenotdel was extremely diverse covering issues such as childcare, housing and public health. As a result of the pressure that it was able to exert, the soviet government in 1920 legalized abortion in state hospitals. It was also involved in fighting prostitution, a social problem that had begun to disappear immediately after the 1917 revolution but was growing due to desperate economic conditions exacerbated by the civil war.
Kollantai had written a series of articles on this issue in 1910 while in exile. Prostitution, she wrote, reduced women to "a simple instrument of pleasure". However, she opposed any legal sanctions. Prostitutes were victims of economic and social conditions, she argued. The revolutionary government had to concentrate on providing alternatives for women, encouraging them to train for jobs and develop their self-esteem as well as providing health care for those who required it.
The Zhenotdel used various measures to involve women in the party and in the running of society. These included delegate conferences of working-class and peasant women. Women were seconded to government departments and party work. Some would get permanent jobs while others would go back to use their experiences to raise the consciousness of other women. Young, literate, working-class women who had enthusiasm and energy were employed as volunteers to do 'outreach work' with other women in the countryside and remote parts of the country.
Although the Zhenotdel produced publications such as the newspaper 'Rabotnista' (woman worker) and the theoretical journal 'Kommunista', most women were illiterate, so discussions, exhibitions, slide shows, etc, were more effective in reaching women, especially peasants. Agit-trains, agit-boats and even agit-tents in the desert were used to spread the word.
There were particular problems with regard to reaching Muslim women in Central Asia. Volunteers were attacked by men with wild dogs and boiling water and some were even hacked to death. Zhenotdel workers had to adapt to this dangerous situation by meeting women secretly in bathhouses."
http://socialistalternative.org/publications/women/
When the Soviet Union collapsed, there was suddenly an overnight flood of prostitutes in Russia and the Eastern bloc due to the lack of jobs created by capitalism.
As for an ad-hoc solution under capitalist, women should be brought out of prostitution and be given better jobs and we should fight for them. If that is not an option, yes they should be unionized, whether prostitution is legal or not.
As for under socialism, there is no way that prostitution should be legal.
Socialist Alternative is the US section of the Committee for a Workers' International, which is fighting in over 35 countries on 6 continents for Marxism.
I disagree. A lot of people go in to porn for fun. I don't see any reason why prostitution/sex work needs/will go away under socialism. The difference will be that the economic factors that drive people there will go away. Some people enjoy it and I don't think there is anything wrong with sex work in and of itself. It only becomes degrading/exploitative under capitalism and that is true for ALL work.
"The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.
Workers of the World Unite!" -Karl Marx
"The dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the organization of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class for the purpose of suppressing the oppressors, cannot result merely in an expansion of democracy. Simultaneously with an immense expansion of democracy, which for the first time becomes democracy for the poor, democracy for the people, and not democracy for the money-bags, the dictatorship of the proletariat imposes a series of restrictions on the freedom of the oppressors, the exploiters, the capitalists. " -Vladimir Lenin
"The People's democratic dictatorship needs the leadership of the working class. For it is only the working class that is most far-sighted, most selfless and most thoroughly revolutionary. The entire history of revolution proves that without the leadership of the working class revolution fails and that with the leadership of the working class revolution triumphs." -Mao Zedong
what if some woman want to make a living by having sex? even if we do offer them training and jobs.??
we need more revolutions and less "isms"
Why not just give them the freedom of choice? I believe some services should be provided to help those who want to get out of the sex industry. Like someone else said, its mainly due to economic reasons.
I am sorry but I diagree so much with this? Forming trade unions?
That is not fighting for the total end of conditions that force a woman to sell her body but for better conditions within her enslavement. That is not revolutionary transformation, it is reform; not abolish.
All wage slavery is a form of "enslavement" although the form and intensity of oppression may differ, depending on occupation. We should not consider prostitution as a form of wage labour that is separate from legal employment. If you argue for the continuation of prostitution's current illegal status on the grounds that we should not be concerned with fighting for reforms within the framework of capitalism, then, by implication, socialists should not encourage other workers to demand improvements in their conditions or take strike action through trade unions, as this could also be considered "reformism" since these forms of struggle are not political in nature. This is an unrealistic and harmful ultra-left position - the struggle for reforms is a perquisite for revolution..
Last edited by BobKKKindle$; 16th February 2008 at 14:37.
Who will provide these jobs? Most Prostitutes live in the developing world, where governments barely have sufficient resources to meet the basic needs of their people, due to the debt burden which demands that governments use their budgets to meet interest payments, and so it is idealistic to think that governments would have the means (or, for that matter, the motivation) to provide alternative employment that offers the same financial reward as prostitution.
Surely unionization will be easier, and will yield better results, if prostitution is legal? If so, why not press for legalization?
I see the truth in your statements here. I dont believe it should be criminalized either and made illegal. It leads to more women being charged and saddled with criminal records. I'd say probably 100% of prostitutes would say they would choose it if they could make a decent living any other way. Criminal records just would hold them back even more.
All workers should seek improvements in their lives.
Last edited by careyprice31; 16th February 2008 at 18:51.
Interesting isn't it that that "entire generation" would be entirely male. Seems that Engels was primarily concerned with the "wholesomness" of his descendents' sexual encounters, that's mighty charitable of him, but politically irrelevent.
The era in which Marx and Engels wrote was called the Romantic era for a reason. There were a great many misconceptions going around regarding human sexual relations, the strongest of which still persists to this day.
Why not?
Strippers and prostitutes may not produce tangible products, but they certainly produce capital. If they are working for a boss, as most of them are, they are producting surplus value (in the form of "agency" or "house" fees) which the boss takes; if they are self-imployed than they keep/re-invest the profits as functional petty-bourgeois "businesswomen".
In either case, though, there is a production of capital and hence work being done.
Besides, how would you apply this approach of yours to other, less controversial service occupations?
Neither a janitor nor a flight attendant produce any tangible products, indeed, like a prostitute, both merely perform service occupations, moving, re-aranging, and distributing pre-existing products.
It would be illogical, however, to suggest that flight attendants are somehow "more oppressed" than factory workers. Both are workers and both are oppressed. The question of "who's the more oppressed" would tend to depend on specifics; there is certainly no category difference between the two.
That is, I would accept that in some cases prostitutes are more exploited than your standard assemblyman; but you must likewise accept that the reverse is often true.
There is simply no "great wall" between prostitute and assemblyman; between escort and janitor.
It is the production of surplus value that defines the worker; not the physical nature of the job that produces said labour. Junking that definition means junking basic Marxism and, functionaly, leads to an economic framework with a massively overrepresented petty-bourgeoisie.
Really? How?
People love to throw that phrase around -- "objectification of women" -- but what does it actually practically mean?
Does wanting to fuck a woman "objectify here"? By the same token, does her wanting to fuck you, "objectify" you?
Doesn't all sex that isn't "emotional" or "loving" constitute, to some degree, "obejctification" by both parties involved? It doesn't mean that either person "disrespects" the other person involved, but when they have anonymous physical sex (and I'm talking in their personal lives here, with no moneys exchanged), they are clearly "using" the other person for their own sexual gratification?
Well ...so what?
When two people play football, aren't they, in a manner of speaking, "using" the other person for physical enjoyment? If they're not actually friends and just meet to kick the ball around, isn't "objectification" occuring? ...actually, yes, but it doesn't matter.
'Cause that what human relations are about. Not every relationship has to be a "meaningful" one and that includes sexual ones.
So does the existance of sex workers "objectify" women? Not really, at least not any more than the existance of professional football players "objectifies" football players.
Prostitutes aren't the problem, patriarchy is and liberal sexuality is not pillar of patriarchy. On the contrary, the less repressed a society's views on sex, the less sexist it is liable to be. Traditional "moralities" go hand in hand.
So while attacking sex workers for "demeaning themselves" is the politically correct bourgeois approach, it doesn't actually do anything to help the real victims of sexism. All it does is further intrench this antiquated patriarchal notion that sexuality is a "male thing" and that any expression of female sexuality "must" be exploitation.
Now obviously prostitution is exploitation, it's the exploitation of capitalism, but no one goes around calling flight attendents names because they're "objectifying women" by working for a wage.
But in every way that counts, the two jobs are indistinguishable.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.
I'd love to change the world, but I don't know what to do, so I leave it up to you...
