You must log in or # to comment.
But does literally anyone say that sex workers are enemies of the working class? Sure, that’s a shitty take, but is it one that exists in reality or was the person here in 2020 just shouting into the void at an imaginary strawman?
Yeah I feel like this person is getting all riled up about something that doesn’t happen. I’ve heard people say it’s immoral, dangerous, exploitative, etc… but enemy of the working class?
The fact that you never had the bad luck of hearing any of them doesn’t mean that they don’t exist. They do, particularly between tankies, the “alt-left” and the extreme radical left. Also there are some pseudo-leftoid people that don’t actually know anything about leftism and all that do is just speaking pseudointellectual nonsense.
I’m not calling you a liar, but I don’t wanna believe it until I see it. And I don’t wanna see it because the world is crazy enough as I see it.
Yeah, that’s totally fair. But I’m just pointing out that ausence of evidence isn’t evidence of ausence.
They do, particularly between tankies, the “alt-left” and the extreme radical left.
Where??
Marx did.
He considered sex workers part of the lumpenproletariat, the lowest of the low alongside drug addicts, thieves, unemployed, etc. and he viewed them as a dangerous class who could be bribed by the rich to turn against the proletariat.
Sure he counted them to the lumpenproletariat, but do you have a text where he actually declares the lumpenproletariat enemy if the working class?
Recalling from memory he saw them as victims of capitalism who deserve better…
So he’s not actually thinking they are class enemies by design. He thought its a class that shouldn’t exist because the hardships they are forced to go through.
He didn’t want people forced into protitution by the system, I dont think he would have something against emancipated sex workers who work in the field from a desire to do so.
Marx position was not about who shall be emancipated or not but who have an interest to struggle for the revolution. In his mind, a part of the proletariat was too precarious, and could be easily corrupt by the bourgeoisie. Such as thieves and cops.
However with the development of the communists party and their propaganda around ouvrierism, the pride of workers turn to be the pride to work. The lumpen became a slur against people that do not work enough; a conception close to the far-right view of unemployed “parasites”. That’s why nobody use that term anymore, even if it’s still accurate for cops and managers
I ask again, does anyone has a quote on that?
I read the capital, the manifesto, the Feuerbach thesen and the 18the brumaire of Luis Bonaparte in German original and can’t recall what you propose. But there are lots of other texts, so if what you say is source based, I am pleased to learn.
“Lumpen” is German for rags, meaning the poorest of the poor, I can’t imagine him using that for managers and the like, in another way than sarcastic. It would absolutely not fit into his theory of society.
What I think the reference is to is
The “dangerous class”, [lumpenproletariat] the social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of the old society, may, here and there, be swept into the movement by a proletarian revolution; its conditions of life, however, prepare it far more for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue.
from the chapter 1 of the 'festo, and even though it’s harsh it does state that it’s not an inevitability, but rather a more likely outcome.
yeah, that’s a cryout about the conditions they have to live under and that they are in danger of being bribed into doing actions that are actually against their material interest
Its the opposite of saying “the material conditions make them an enemy of the working class”
Their is what Marx said and whats marxists made of that. Again, this is poorly defined in Marx text and spread in a lot of them. You’d rather rely on people that study the lumpen as a context, maybe Jean-Claude Bourdin. However for orthodoxes : “From whore to pope, there is a mass of such rabble. But the honest and ‘working’ lumpenproletariat belongs here as well;” - Grundrisse
Yeah, never heard that as well - quote would be nice
If you had read marx, you’d know that those are categories that show one’s relation to means of production. For instance, an artisan isn’t automatically a petite bourgeois or proletariat, it depends on if they own their MOP they work with.
The few sex workers privileged/lucky enough to be relatively independent on onlyfans or other sites are petit bourgeois, those who work in countries where sex work is legalized and is essentially a day job for wage are proletarian, and those who do it illegally, likely under a pimp (who is also lumpen) and/or gangs, essentially being their asset is lumpenproletariat.
The lumpen prostitute was pretty much the only type back then, and them + other lumpens such as thieves and thugs were actually mobilized by reactionaries to coup the French government (18th Brumaire) during Marx’s time, thus the analysis that, again, they could be mobilized by reaction.
Yeah, and he clearly states they are misled into being reactionary because obviously its in their material interest to abolish the private ownership of production, as they suffer the most from it.
Anyone can be bribed Into actions which are against his class interest, but because the lumpenproletariat is so poor and desperate, the cost of bribing them is much lower and therefore the risk of them being bribed in relevant numbers into being reactionary much greater
If Marx gets to edit out the parts of Hegel he didn’t like, then I get to do the same with Marx.
Just that he didn’t actually say this and op is either lying or massively misunderstanding Marx.
Hence he only replies to people agreeing with him and not to the ones wondering where he got that from asking for a source or quote.
Let’s just edit out Marx entirely. He was a racist piece of shit at the end of the day.
You are the one that brought him up.
Yeah, most of the critiques on sex work you hear from the left is that it’s such an inherently shitty and degrading job that it should be banned because it is so exploitative.
Who said that in the first place?
iPhone users masking as leftists on twitter make up their imaginary enemies to shit on
This is the question that needs to be asked everytime an outrage discourse starts
Followed by: well who the fuck are they?
A lot of times I see something like this I am pretty sure it’s reacting to a villain that only exists in a theoretical sense
It’s not even if prostitution has much of a left vs right stance on it. It’s generally seen as something that’s more or less inevitable, and much used by the political classes on both sides of the divide.
I know some people seem to think that it’s an indication that an economy is in decline, but it really isn’t. Because it’s a job that will be always in demand and there will always be people who are prepared to do it, regardless of how much money they may already have. The only real economic marker that you can use prostitution for is how much they charge.
I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone make that statement before. Mostly because that statement is utterly irrational even if you don’t think that sex workers should be a supported business.
There are a brand of folks derogatorily called SWERFs or sex worker exclusionary radical feminists. It’s not a super common view, but exists, and I’m sure as a sex worker she’s experienced plenty of it on twitter.
Yeah, this is a very weird tweet. It almost is like that person doesn’t want to think of the realities of procuring. Sure buddy, the women having to sell their bodies / services to rich men got to keep all the money and then spend it in their communities.
I mean. They’re not building data centers with it.
Who is saying that though
“erm sex work is actually heccin wholesome” oh my fucking god, execute all porn addicted brain rotted gooners please
Money is needed to purchase your needs for survival, without it you’re pretty much dead. You cannot buy consent with money, you cannot go up to someone and say “hey let’s have sex in exchange for your means of survival”, it is literally just commodified rape in every sense.
What makes it worse is that if you look at sex work industry, the vast majority of sex workers are single mothers with children to care for :) with major spikes in their quantity during times of economic downturn :))), meaning that for them it’s “get raped by this guy for money or you and your child will starve to death”
This shit is horrifying, it’s not wholesome it’s not revolutionary, and if you think that it is then genuinely seek help for your porn addiction or at least give it a bit more thought. It makes me unreasonably angry due to my own life experiences, not because of some vague moralism.
I’m really torn by this argument. To me it’s mainly an argument against capitalism (and a valid one for that).
The vast majority of cleaning personal might as well be single mothers to meet their means of survival. Also: where I am, there is “good enough” social security, so it’s not about survival.
People working at construction sites are ruining their body to make ends meet (to pick up your argument again). Sure, you could not argue that they are raped, but enslaved then.
Edit: the -> there
Yes, wage labor is also shit, it is inherently exploitative and you’re also forced to sell your labor power to procure your needs for survival. While work itself is necessary to sustain life, wage labor isn’t and it’s not something to valorize.
This post is literally valorizing one of the most horrible types of work, ones that more often than not results in literal slavery by pimps, targets the most desperate and vulnerable, and in general commodifies one of the most intimate activities two consenting adults can do and gives ‘customers’ carte blanche to rape.
The amount of violence, trafficking, abuse, trauma, etc sex industry (even in regulated form) creates is horrifying, but I guess it’s okay because it “supports the local community!! Be sure to purchase your own sex slave today!”. It’s not a wholesome 100 small business.
I absolutely condemn pimping and forced labor (sex or other). So I guess I agree with you quite a bit.
But where does this turn into rape? I can’t follow. “Rape is a type of sexual assault involving sexual intercourse or other forms of sexual penetration carried out against a person without their consent.” (I googled, AI spit that out, claims it’s from Wikipedia. But I hope we can vaguely agree on this definition?). It’s bought consent. A huge amount of consent is bought, outside of prostitution. With money, with power, with influence.
Consent isn’t something that’s bought or sold, ‘bought consent’ is literally coercion.
Compare and contrast two situations: one, where two people go “hey, we both like each other and are both horny, let’s do it tonight” and thus doing it to share intimacy/mutually satisfy their needs and another where a stranger goes “hey, let me fuck you and I’ll give you money so you can afford your future survival, or starve to death”, and it doesn’t have to be money but position of power or other type of coercion. Even if the other person in the second example agrees, it’s not because they freely “want to do it” (they might not even have a choice) but because of what they might receive after the act, one person using their position of power over another.
If it’s coercion, there can be no free consent. If there’s no consent, it’s rape (like the definition you dropped says). If the rape is sold for money, it’s merely commodified.
My boss used to buy my consent to do his (non sex) work for many years.
Just because you have exchanged money for sex doesn’t mean the sex worker can no longer revoke consent. Rape is a huge danger for sex workers and it is wild that you’re sitting here confused about how rape happens.
I never discussed revoked consent, and I fully agree that consent can change. Never said anything different, right?
I’m not confused, and you start making things up.
But where does this turn into rape? I can’t follow.
Sex workers are often raped in the course of their profession. What are you confused about here?
They’re both exploitative, but just imagine like you had to kiss you’re boss on the mouth the unlock your full bonus.
The more you give the more you might get. True for many many jobs. But this is not forcing, this is not “have to”. This is setting you own boundaries. Like you do with every relationship, private, business, erotic (for lack of a better word) or not.
So you think that workplace sexual harassment (exchanging bonuses or promotions or other benefits for sexual activities) is fine, as long as the coercion is only monetary?
No, that’s not what I said.
I have re-read the comment thread like three times and I don’t see any other interpretation.
“just imagine like you had to kiss you’re boss on the mouth the unlock your full bonus” (textbook workspace sexual harassment)
Response:
- The more you give the more you might get
- True for many many jobs
- this is not forcing, this is not “have to”
How is this anything but defending sexual harassment?
I read the ‘kiss boss on mouth’ in the context of prostitution, where this might be agreed upon. Thought you asked me to take their perspective.
I don’t understand your implication. You’ll have to spell it out for me please :)
Not sure what/which part you mean. If “all”, then sorry, no.
Like what do you mean? That work is like a relationship? I don’t get the comparison. Work is a totally different type of relationship because of the exchange of money. It makes it so you can’t walk away from situations at work that you would in real life
Ah. I meant ‘relationship’ in the broader sense. Like the relation you have with any entity you interact with.
“sucking a stranger’s dick for money is more horrifying and degrading than cleaning a stranger’s toilet for money” and other statements only ever spoken aloud by people who have neither sucked dicks nor cleaned toilets for money.
I think you are overestemating how well people clean their dicks usually, by a very big fsctor
I think you are overestimating how much dignity you can retain while scrubbing someone else’s shit stains out of a toilet.
I find it odd that your definition of sex workers ends a prostitution. What about… Strippers and Private Dancers?
What about onlyfans men and women, eroticica writers, or hentai artists? These sex workers bearly interact with their customers in the real world! (Okay I’ve seen some onlyfans prostitution. I digress.)
Did
get raped when he did some sex work?Finally. No I will not turn off my gooner brain. You loons need turn off your violence brain and turn on your gooner brain. Sex is way more fun, and cooperative, than violence.
deleted by creator
Sex workers literally colonized the world. Step 1 to inviting people into an area to build a new community is to build a brothel. Madames, the owners, were considered real leaders with strong soft power, as they were some of the earliest settlers with invaluable economic and social connections. People really like to forget how much sex workers have done for humanity.
“funneling” depends if they are on the streets or if hired by someone to entertain their clients. Victims either way, though.
You don’t think it’s possible for a sex worker to not be a victim?
No. We are all victims of capitalism’s drive to commodify all aspects of life.
If they still wanna play the game without the shadow of the market, they’re still welcome to.
A trade union confederation do unionize sex workers as such, and the sex workers section is on the fediverse : https://lemmy.wtf/u/cntstp67tds@pixelfed.fr
broken either way
erf. Maybe through Mastodon ? https://pixelfed.fr/cntstp67tds
yup
Not the only thing trickling down, ifyaknowwhatimsayinhah
Heyyyyooooo
Cum.
…there is a reason it is called, “The Oldest Profession”…all y’all puritans are weird…
true in 2020, true now
now donate that iphone
BAM!
The only reason the poor would hate sex workers is if they couldn’t afford their services
