Under capitalist society is all sex work rape?

thats a fetish, porn as a economic industry is whats important. dont worry youll have fap material in FALC.

How is porn not a commodity?

Which is basically error of wrong assumptions. We don't live in patriarchal society and power structure is not based on sex.

Fuck! All my clutching at straws and moralist handwringing last thread did not result in anything that looks like a victory. Best start another thread to immediately repeat the same logic and strategy.
t. OP

If Holla Forums is correct, then all sex with women is rape, because their childlike brains can't perform the higher reasoning functions necessary for consent.

+So in effect, all Holla Forumscuck sex havers are in fact rapists.

...

Porn is commodity, but production of porn is not prostitucy: it's actors, cameramen, various kinds of support jobs. Porn industry can be perceived as capitalist, but it's not specifically different than any other film-making industry - despite being offensive to petty bourgeoise morality and fetishized because of the special relationship of this social class to the issues of morality.

In basis of pure Marxist theory, there's no reason we should distinguish production pornography and other films.

All sex is rape.

Imagine being this retarded.

Yes, we're not. At least I assume you're not from middle-eastern islamic country where you need to wear a veil on the face under penalty.

Prostitution can also be seen as capitalist, and women as a commodity.

Sex isn't work. Prostitution is the result of alienation and desperation. It has no place in a socialist society. It should be abolished like any other form of exploitation such as Child Labor.

this tbh

That's some dumb shit. if that's true all procreation is rape and rape is the normal way to procreate. You sure you want to normalize rape?

It's interesting that your definition of patriarchal society is death because of clothing and anything less than that cant possibly be patriarchy. There's a reason that most of American business and politics are controlled by men. You can either say it's discrimination against women or you can say woman are inferior as you teleport back to Holla Forums.

Why is being a prostitute any worse than being a factory worker?

Prostitution is parasitic and produces no value of any kind outside of the intense alienation of non-socialist society. There's a reason why Lenin had them all slaughtered.

'Services' are wide subject. Also, I didn't wrote that all work in services isn't work, but that unproductive work isn't work that constitutes a working class in Marxist sense which is difference. In example, in Polish translations of Marx there's strict distinction between two possible understandings of "working class" ("Arbeiterklasse"): "klasa robotnicza", which means factory workers, and "klasa pracująca" which means all working people, which are actually in line with Marx's intent: Marxist proleratiat were the new social class that was created by capitalism and obliged to perform factory work, especially it DIDN'T include farmers.

Modern, frequent and faulty extension of Marxist definition of the proletariat to all people doing any work, is functioning only for purpose of political propaganda, but don't have any theoretical substantiation.

Factory workers, if they have work environments that are up to code, don't have to deal with the same levels of emotional stress and trauma as being penetrated or penetrating someone who you don't want or like for survival.

?
Same as fidget spinners, what's your point?
I doubt that's true, but what is that reason?

It's not question of being worse or better, because we're talking about social theory not moral assessments. Let moral assessments be done by priests, or someone like them.

Only by a very loose interpretation of rape, one so loose that pity sex could be considered rape as well.

Good thing Holla Forumscuck sexhavers don't exist then.

Yeah or tankies, clearly. I'm not moralising it, I'm trying to understand why he thinks it's "bad"

Productive work such as what?

Such as folding kettles by production band.

Right, my question obviously is what determines what "productive work" is?

This statement has the same sense as telling that Jews control your industry. It's simply flawed: if people who control industry are largely men, it don't means that men control industry. Men don't have collective couciousness or interest, bourgeoise have.

Or you can say it's the fact that we don't value the kind of labor traditionally associated with women as much as men, the fact that women have to put more work into planning for a family and less into career advancement, the fact that we have shitty maternity and paternity leave. Could those things be construed as "patriarchy"? Seems like a stretch.

If you want to make a case that it's discrimination, let's see some evidence. The United States at least has had three separate federal laws put in place over the last ~40 years outlawing sexual hiring discrimination and not a lot to show for it.

So i suggest teleport back to your Tumblr if you imagine that you need to have factiory with slave workers to feel equal with men. I don't have a time or wil to deal with this "gender warfare" shit.

Oh, you mean petty bourgeoise women? Working class women since more than 150 years are doing exaclty the same kind of productive labor as men.

I recommend to read Rosa Luxemburg in this topic. It's good cure for feminist bite.

So let's just install more women into the bourgeois then? There's two ways to interpret this statement: either patriarchy doesn't exist or the kind you're describing does and it doesn't matter.

If you're really a leftist you would understand that liberal faith in institutions is silly and will not curb anything. Using this logic you can say rascism ended after the civil right amendment.

Then why the fuck are you on leftypol you idiot? Go back to Holla Forums or read some bell hooks.

Yes… yes it does. We're talking about material realities in which there are majorities of people with a specific set or traits. Why do they have those traits and why? It's basic investigation. You have to wonder why common sense is common sense. Antionio Gramsci talks about this.

When I say that I mean child care workers get paid like shit.

I shit on your bell hooks, and I'm not fucking gender warrior like Holla Forumsidiots or feminists.

It's important to rectify patriarchal thinking because without it communism cannot exist. If you do not learn from the past you are doomed to repeat it.

Okay now this is just concern trolling.

user… I'm sorry about your brain condition. It must be hard being that dense.

Prostitution is unnecessary. For humans having sex is like breathing. Having some kind of special caste of people dedicated to fucking others for payment could only ever exist under the most exploitative systems. It is a waste of energy. It is a waste of female (and male) potential.

It doesn't matter if it's "rape" or not. What makes something immoral is whether or not it's an entirely autonomous decision.
if you want to know more, read Kant.

Now you're just avoiding the argument. You can't even say in good faith anything I said in that post is wrong.

Look at the niggas flag. unless he's the crypto-leftcom

No, it's the same rhetoric that lead socialist revolutionary movement to crash on several national liberation movements that lead only to creation of nationalist ethno-states. It's the same thing with feminism: if you believe there's some common interest between worker men and bourgeoise me,n based on their gender, you probably believe also that there's common interest between bourgeoise women and worker women on basis of their gender.
And that leads to conclusion that instead of class struggle we should support your "sisters" from ruling class, and as usually "work more, earn less" and blame it on stereotypical male co-worker and his assumed 'privilege'.

Typical bourgeoise ideology aimed on destroying our common struggle for a better life.

Engels weren't this one who wrote that all men have muh privilege over all women regardless of class.

You know you still haven't directly addressed any of my critiques of your shitty ideology. Perhaps it is you who is avoiding the argument. Might I suggest returning to tumblr?

Most work under capitalism is unnecessary.
Same goes for food. We have a special caste of people dedicated to feeding others for payment.
So I'm asking, why do you hate prostitution and not baking?

Prostitution isn't specific of capitalism, so it isn't concern of anticapitalist struggle.

/thread

It's not the oppressed who think this way. It's the bourgeois who want to divide. The working class women want desperately to overthrow their class traitors but they cannot because of they bias against them both from a class and gender perspective. This is where intersexuality comes in. These dual oppressions present a straight jacket for working class women. There is a common interest of all women based on gender but because of intersectionality the working class women can see how they are being exploited. It's the reason they didn't vote for Hillary.

Tumblr is full of neoliberal garbage why would I go there? You're literally taking the position that Marxism never at any point stressed that we should have an equal society which includes equality between the sexes.

Even if that were true that would only affirm my position.

That's where intersectionality comes in. All men regardless of class have muh privilege over all men in some ways. But some men have certain muh privileges over women in some ways.

That's just common sense. Intersectionality is a neoliberal meme. Abandon it.

What is this autistic jibberish?

it's bourgeoise who want to divide us!!111!

That's how bourgeoise women think.

Don't forget: it's impossible to rape a boy, you whitey male scum.

Intersectionality has been co-opted by neoliberals but it is correct. Much like Foucault and a bunch of other things have been perverted. That's how capitalist society works. It doesn't mean the idea is bad.

No one says this

Intersectionality is new form of nationalism which is used by petty bourgeoise, reformist left to avoid class struggle.

Most of feminists, actually.

Intersectionality has never been good. It was produced by American universities and is designed to aid the neoliberal state and nothing more. It has nothing that traditional socialism does not also have.

If you're a man, you're a rapist, because all your natural sex drive is drive to rape. Also it's nearly impossible to rape a man by woman because rape is only being penetrated without consent, not being forced to penetrate. So all rapists are men, and men-on-men rape is not our probem! :3
Could you stop rape and opress us, thankyou

So much this. Thank you, comrade Tank.

Y'know, I was going to honestly ask you something, but that's a very suspicious post. Seriously,

Those are the kind of women I'm talking about are messing things up you autist. They are putting superstructure(right language, speech, etc.) before the base(seizing the means of production). This is why they are liberals and are hated. This is basic Marx.
Yes there is a common interest between women, it's liberation from the patriarchal society but some women are class and gender traitors. Therefore they must be dealt with.

Intersectionality was invented in circless of Americna upper middle class to replace class struggle with nationalist, racist or gender strugles which will never win. That's why US are so reactionary now, and all countries in American cultural influence too.

There's no such thing as patriarchy. Working class men have no power, they're deprived of everything.

Muh patriarchy.

History repeats as fucking farce…

What Holla Forums tard knows who Gramsci is? He's not even that famous of a marxist theorist. Also, are you really saying that Leftists don't deal with gender?

“Goods” and “services” are terms from the lexicon of bourgeois economics, not Marxism, carrying with them the idea of sectors of the economy producing differents kinds of things, in the case of services, “immaterial” or intangible commodities, doing something for someone rather than making something for someone. This conception, however, confuses the mind, and clarification is complicated by the breadth of the category “services” and the muddled nature of the distinction.

Firstly, both goods and services are commodities, i.e., meeting someone else’s need to earn a living. In general, the kind of labour may be the same; what differs is the manner in which the exchange is effected.

For example, if I make a pizza and it goes into the supermarket, I have manufactured a good. But if I work as the cook in a restaurant and make exactly the same pizza to be handed over the counter, then I have become a “service worker”.

If you buy a car, that’s a good; but if you lease the same car, that’s a service. The line between “hire purchase” and leasing is hard to draw. It may be that additional labour (regular servicing for example) is combined with the manufacture of the car by socialising labour which would have been carried out by the owner themselves, but hire remains simply a means of effecting a sale.

marxists.org/glossary/terms/g/o.htm#goods-and-services

I'm saying it's not the most common thing around here, and that this place is infamous for having "social conservatives" or "purely economic leftists", in general people just say it's not a main point of discussion. I'm also implying that this Holla Forumsyp would have been reading recent threads, as several of them do, and took inspiration from them.

what

...

invented bullshit concept. First you invent a stupid fucking concept, then you give it a stupid fucking name (patriarchy, Holocaust, intersectionality) then you find other fart sniffing smugtards to help spread the bullshit online, then refer to yourselves as proof of concept. It's so disingenuous, it's enraging. You know how you can tell those are made up buzzwords? My spell checker doesn't recognize them as words. It's not mentally ill.

Mine corrects "intersectionality" to internationalist; regardless, this is some low tier bullshit Holla Forumsyp smugness.

intersectionality is not very helpful outside of feminist and Maoist-3rd-worldist circles, and it is an impractical solution to objective violence, and prevents the redress of systemic violence.

Patriarchy is just how some people choose to say oligarchy; a lot of them are men, but really the word is interchangeable.

Well, did we make up the word Holodomor?
Rabbit wool > Jews.

...

It really isn't.

What is with these people, when called out on their dumb terminology, going "AKSHUALLY IT MEANS THIS ALREADY EXISTING WORD EVEN THOUGH NOBODY USES IT IN SUCH A CONTEXT"

I mean it's one thing to say people are bitching about the same thing and don't realise it, it's another to say they're actually bitching about the same thing and simply using a different word.

Yes and no. Camgirls are sexworkers technically and while many do it to pay the bills, others do it just for material gain or because they enjoy it.

How can you suggest it isn't?
The patriarchal authority figures are literally the subordinate power structure of our oligarchs, just because of a few bulldogs and bull-dykes, and the occasional Oprah- does no more than express the exceptions that prove the rule.

For instance, corporate attorneys are tall men.

Yes, the argument about evolved plant foods is about pesticides, not genetic manipulation- it is then contrived into a "franken food" meme- same applies to oligarchic critique being contrived into rebukes of patriarchal oppression.

Welcome to the world of controlled opposition.

If there is a difference to that beyond you being contrarian/anal or going over semantics.

...

Well a). Yes it is. b). it also isn't.
Read Kant.

If it's rape who's the rapist? The John or capitalism?

You don't normalize something by recognizing it. It was normalized by male supremacy.

Provide a source on Lenin 'slaughtering prostitutes'. I mean I know this is bullshit but I need to understand why you would even say this.

The John and the pimp.

lol

Marxism was never ideology to archieve equality between sexes in class society. Equality between sexes will be archieved on bass of work and reationship between labor and production, not feminist mumble about how all men are rapists.

That's where neoliberal garbage comes in, I fix'd it for you.

Fucking read Engels

But it don't mean that all tall men are corporate attorneys.
This is elementary logic.

Which part, especially? As I remember, Engels criticized patriarchal structure of family, but he did wrote nothing about sex work or opression of prostitutes as important part of proletarian struggle. Moreover, Marx explicite had wrote that organized criminals, prostitutes, pimps, smugglers, etc. all people whose main income is from outside of regulated labour system and law, are lumpenproletariat - alies of the bourgeoise and enemies of the real proletariat.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpenproletariat

Prostitution (or various form of it: "sponsoring", being a wife non-working of rich husband) if one of the best examples of what lumpenproletariat is.

No.

Being purposefully ambiguous about what rape is is bad.

People actually do pay for amateur porn.

Specifically, Engels wrote that the family structure mirrored property relations, and that the oppression of women is due to them being essentially declassed - without property and without any relation to production (no wage labour), and thus their only purpose is to ensure the inheritance of property (that is, they are breeders).
Marx's theory of the lumpenproletariat is probably one of the most contentious parts of Marxist theory. I'm not gonna go that deep into it, but what I'll say is that you're looking at its backwards. It's not that prostitutes are declassed (which they are because it is illegal and not considered labour) and thus should be ignored, but rather that they should BECOME classed and their labour recognised and made legal, so that they can become a part of the broader class struggle.
Prostitutes are class conscious as fuck

So why we never had such thing as worker union of prostitutes?

Intersectionality was co opted by liberals you idiot just like they co opt everything

It's totally untrue, my work (and I'm femanon) is just as wage labour as men's labor, and almost all of my co-workers are also women because I'm doing stereotypically feminine work.

Only wealthy, middle class women can have comfort of staying at home and care of children. I would like to live like that, but it's simply economically impossible.

Because it would be illegal, fam
Read this thread

Remember that Marx and Engels wrote at a time where women didn't own property and didn't do wage labour unless they were in the lowest classes. Women today in the first world aren't declassed; practically everyone works and both men and women can own property.

I use cam models

Fuck, am I a rapist?

They don't DO anything
They lay back and spread their legs while doing something completely natural to humans
Should I be paid each time I take a dump?

Not really, Marxist theory acutally exceeds times when women didn't do wage labour (well, we did it from the beginings of capitalism actually). I recommend reading "Women’s Suffrage and Class Struggle" by Rosa Luxemburg in this topic. It's completly not feminist at all, agaist theories of men muh privilege, but at the same time radical pro-women. It's -because- women are wage laborers, women can't revolt agains this system without class struggle and with alliance of women bourgeoise.

Are you a femanon(user) or just a regular femanon

I only don't agree wth Rosa in point where she trusted in parliamentarianism and the party system. Social reality has proven that women suffrage didn't give us any serious level of influence on political reality, still it's dictate of capital and the Church, so it was irrevelant to our struggle. Only succesfull women struggle can be lead by workers unions and be aimed against state and capital as a whole,

Why don't you like feminism and the concept of muh privilege?

That's why I wrote "except the lowest classes". Engels also noted in Origin of the Family that sexual discrimination was not as great among families of the proletariat (and lower classes in general) compared to the higher classes, since both have to work.

pretty much

Because it's alienating to my male co-workers and many women from more poor social classes, ie. living in small villages, and because of it it's obstacle to the practical improvement of my life.

I live in small town in Eastern Poland: here you really can't find a woman or girl that is supportive to feminism. Most of women think feminists are laughter worthy, for their class blindness and complete distraction from reality. "Big city ladies".

I used to identify myself as feminist by most part of my life, I stopped when I joined feminist organizations: there were full of middle class ladies who actually wanted most of us to work harder and more to create national income. They weren't really interesed in deconstruction their own muh privilege or true emancipation of working class. I even had wrote a feminist article to one protest newspaper for which I'm very ashamed to this day.

Feminism is bourgeoise ideology that is misleading women with a false idea that ruling class women are our "sisters" and somehow if we give them power, they'll create capitalism better place for us. But in reality they aren't interested in our lives and only want power to themselves, they'll be just as reactionary as men if it'll be beneficial for them.

TBH I'm not interested in emancipation of petty bourgeoise women just like they aren't interested of my emancipation. There's no such thing as "sisterhood", it's just fiction.

Fam, I'm not sure you get me. I'm explaining the Marxist analysis, I'm not saying we should emancipate the wives of the petit-bourgeoisie, that time is long gone.

Also, feminists love to appropriate organizations and forms of struggle made by poor, working class women, often from 3rd world countries, even if they don't have much in common with feminism, and portray it as if these fighting women were feminists. This is happening all the time, in example Rojava fighters against Daesh (of which only a small part are feminists) or so called Gulabi Gang in India; and this happened also in the past - like appropriation of women workers strikes and revolts to be supposedly inspitred by feminists.

I think most part of feminism values ideology over practice and that's why it's so unpopular - it's purely intellectual movement which tries to organize other women by their ideology, and that's will never work. I prefer to watch real struggles against opression and then try to match theory to it. And as I see, there's no any anti-men or anti-gender resistance in our society, but instead of it it's strong class tension. Inclusion of feminist theory into class analysis doesn't enrich it in any way.

Que? Democratic Confederalism is feminist

Only if you define feminism very widely. Democratic Confederalism isn't based on presumption that ruling class women have common interest with working class women, or that class struggle can wait until make gender struggle, which are key concepts of feminism.
Also, most of Rojava fighters are religious Musllims, very actually reactionary in European standards. Totally not feminist at all, feminists just appropriate their archievements to their own propagadna purposes.

Why do liberal feminists hate pimps? If sex work is just like any work, what's the difference between pimping and regular employment?

Were all raped by capital- our lifeworlds are forcibly penetrated by technology and capitalist society. Even before this its obvious reality is not consent based since no one asks to exist. So, to say that all sex is rape is not going too far, its not going far enough. The idea that there is someone else imposing their will must be undermined, since that persons will is also established through forces beyond their control and therefore consent.

We can't ever reach consent because to really consent youd have to know whats really going on, meaning ultimate scientific truth. But once we get to ultimate science it will undermine the autonomy required for choice, since well understand exactly why every single choice ever was made and be able to predict future choices in advance. AKA we are all being raped by the world, but if this breaks down the subject object distinction there is no "us" there to be raped and no one there to do the raping.

So yes, it is all rape as commonly known. But women manipulating men can also lead to rape given that emotional coercion is in principle no different than material coercion (mental states are material conditions). Then it telescopes all the way to the "ultimate agent" who is coercing everyone else but this cant exist. The ruling class also does not meaningfully consent to holding their ideology since it has to do with their upbringing and social conditions. Following the principle of consent logically means working toward the ability of all humans to make informed choices, so theres no real reason to focus on sex workers in particular.

The idea that some people are more coerced than others is ultimately false but it is socially true. Yet be careful not to lean too much on the idea that some people out there are consenting because you ultimately cant ground this concept. It appears falsified to me. At least be thinking about how no one asks to be born

I'd say no, because it implies all sex work is done as a last resort for fear of starvation. Many people enjoy it or simply would rather do that than manual labor. Even for those in dire circumstances, there are a plethora of other illicit activity to feed yourself, like drug dealing, panhandling (legal in some places, illegal in others), theft (petty or otherwise), etc.

So no, sex work is much broader than the implied poor sex worker trying to get by

Tabula rasa =/= rape
What you are touching on here is the philosophical idea of the illusion of free will since science accounts only for nature and nuture in the actions of an individual. This is completely true, but if that makes all sex rape, that makes all the rape committed not be at the consent of the rapist. It makes every decision anyone has ever made be a sort of metaphorical "rape" since no one consented from free will. Not because they didn't consent, but because there is no scientific free will to begin with. Your premise is fallacious.

Uuh, no? The key concepts of feminism are women's emancipation and gender equality, and in that sense DemCon is explicitly feminist and in some ways goes beyond even that. What you describe is what happens when bourgeois feminists equate women's emancipation with property rights

Exchanging resources for sex is a totally natural behavior. It is observed in wild animals.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_among_animals

Just like killing other members of the same species under certain conditions

The whole "self employed" aspect of being an escort is what makes liberals like it.

So they accept that it isn't a regular labour, and that there is something about prostitution that makes exploitation wrong in this case?

Yes - instead of worker's emancipation and classless society. When you look on history of feminism you'll find that it's origins are in very classist and even racist american upper and middle class ladies, who just wanted to be as educated and politically influencial as their bourgeoise husbands. It's political movement that originated in issues internal to bourgeoise, and was hostile to working class movements from it's begining.

Prostitutes can't be exploited because they don't produce anything. There's no product of labor that is taken from them by their clients or superiors.

I know how it sounds but prostutition is in fact being some kind of social parasite, just like ie. doing purely intellectual and nonproductive jobs, like being a professor of philosophy.

I don't want to say that prostitutes are not oppressed, but they're opressed in different way than working class is opressed.

And yet you have legit Marxists and Anarchists who were also feminists. I'm well aware of the bourgeois history of feminism, but that does not mean that all feminism is bourgeois, nor that DemCon isn't feminist. Defining something as broad as feminism, which has taken a large variety of forms throughout history, as only the things you dislike is bloody stupid.

The origins of a movement are important, but not confining, to its purpose. It is movement, meaning its purpose can change for the worse or the better. The reason feminism found its roots in such gentry is because at the time they were the only ones well educated enough to consider such things and well off enough to be able to spend time fighting for issues they care about as opposed to the working class which simply wanted to get by.

When you specify that feminism isn't about worker's emancipation and a classless society, the cause here is not that feminism was exclusive from these idea but that intersectionality simply didn't exist at the time. More broadly, the two are largely unrelated in terms of necessity to hold one or both. I've known radical feminists who are about as capitalist as you get, who will in a single breath criticize the patriarchy for implementing government regulations to keep her down and rape her spirit of free enterprise. They often do have ties, especially with second wave feminism, but as independent ideas they are not related out of necessity.

How so? It takes time and effort, it can provide one-sided use value if only one party enjoys it, you can exchange it for the money form of value because of this. Sounds like work to me.
Sex work is rape in the way that wage labour is slavery, and much the same it's trite to talk of it as such. Emotional garbage. Study it scientifically, propose to improve the human condition based on your findings, leave the moral whinging at home.

Whoa whoa slow down there. Physical production isn't the only form of labor. The most basic economics will remind you that production takes the forms of goods AND services. Could a minimum wage McDonalds employee who just works cash register "not be exploited" because they don't produce the food and simply offer a service? You have a very narrow few of labor and production.

Namefag is right for once

Of course, I can imagine proletarian feminism just like I can imagine proletarian nationalism, but in practice there aren't any really influential current in feminism movement, and tendency is towards disappearance.

In every feminist organisation I saw, even if there were many of proletarian women involved, ideology was created in way that finally always caused bourgeoise issues more important, and liberal narration dominating. I tried to join class struggle with feminism but it was near to impossible when we started to discuss questions like disempowering men. You know, no male worker want to be part of struggle that leas to disempower him and worsen his life situatuon, noone want to constantly be sorry for being born male or sorry for rapes he didn't commit.

Management also takes time and effort.

All feminists should write this on a small slip of paper and put it in their (man) purses. This is why it has been a political poison pill. Unless you offer a non-zero sum proposition, people simply will not support you, abstract justice be damned.

Point?

That you'll not find a person in this world whose activities don't take time and effort for exchange of money, and by that you could say that we already live in classless society.

And management is also work

It is work, and management in its relation to capital is proletarian.
Now, the individual manager is often not a prole because they are paid enough to purchase capital, and are often paid in capital (stocks). Stop confusing the condition of the individual person (irrelevant nave gazing bullshit) with the relation to capital. There are people who combine various relations to capital in them, they are a small minority, they don't matter.
If you want to be a pedant about it, the moment a manager receives an income from capital sufficient to reproduce himself, he can be counted as a capitalist. He no longer needs to work to live in the abstract.

Class isn't defined by time and effort, so no, that wouldn't make sense. It seemed like you were implying management is not a legitimate job, and while from the perspective of a worker the manager may seem like they do nothing, or their work is illegitimate, it really depends on where you work. I've had managers who did literally nothing and coasted off our work. My current manager usually fills in as a line cook. It all depends on the place, so management or other jobs like that can't really be defined by how much effort is put in. I disagree with the assertion that work is defined by effort just like you do, but your reasoning why is false

Holla Forums loves white women. Your meme better describes mgtow imo

It doesn't actually. When you sell hours of your labour power, you're a wage labourer. It doesn't actually matter if you do anything, you're just an absolute asshole/genius if you don't

It depends on where you work meaning management at one company is vastly different than management at other in terms of effort. Also, how many hours do you work? Part time or full time? How many jobs? How much does it pay, and thus, how many hours do you have to work to equal your wages at another differently paying job?
Also, selling hours of labor is not the only criterion for wage labor. What about salaried employees? What about hourly workers who transitioned to become salaried?

Wage laborer is a broad term, simply slapping it on somewhere doesn't mean anything.

And they're still all wage labour. Of course there's a difference between different jobs, but that's besides the point, the mechanics are the same. You sell hours of labour power for a wage.
There seems to be this misconception that "proles" or wage labourers are fundamentally good and virtuous and natural allies, and that everyone who isn't must somehow not be a "real" or "legitimate" labourer. Similarly anyone who cannot be defined as a wage labourer or productive worker is automatically an enemy, regardless of their relation to production or revolutionary potential, which is why we have this stupid argument about whether sex work is "real" work. It doesn't matter what's "real" work. Socialism isn't about fetishising workers, it's about class struggle, and class struggle is ultimately the struggle between the property-owners and their defenders vs those who do not own property.

My bad, your original comments seemed like you were using that same assertion of good proletariat vs bad bougiousie. I misunderstood you. I agree, but when you refer to property owners, what kind of property? Private or personal? Usually people talk about private property but the overwhelming amount of people who get shit on for being upper class are shit on because of personal property, not private.

No problem, it happens. I mean private property, of course

Why is it, then, that its always the bougie upper class with diamond this and gold that and the big cars always get shit, while the factory owner who lives modestly is largely ignored? Isn't that kind of missing the point of socialism?

Because they haven't read Marx. Class relations are symbolised by fashion and commodities. When you see someone with a big car and a rolex, you know he's richer and "better" than you. Anyone who isn't a bootlicker can see the unfairness in that, because they know that the rich guy isn't better than them, he was just born in the right family, went to the right schools, etc. It pisses them off, but they might not have the knowledge or vocabulary to see it as a property relation, so they lash out at the symbols.
It works the other way around, too: people who admire the bourgeoisie imitate them by adopting the symbols. So you get all these middle class people and noveau riche who buy all these fancy useless toys because that's what being rich means. Meanwhile the real bourgeoisie hardly give a rat's ass because they already got everything.
This is also why the altruistic or modest bourgeois is so often admired or ignored, because they subvert these class symbols and in a sense "give back" to the lower classes or at least appeals to their sensibilities. They're still a capitalist but they're a nice and "ethical" capitalist.

TL;DR most people are "reads marx once" types

Also does all mighty daddy musk fall under nice and ethical capitalist

I'd say he falls under the "genius innovator" nouveau riche types like Bill Gates and Zuckerberg, silicon valley capitalists. They're the guys people point at to show how great capitalism is. They're poster boys, basically

Then would Warren Buffet be the nice and ethical one? He lived really modestly despite being one of the richest men alive (the number one richest for quite some time) and built lots of good things for people and donates a ton

Yeah, I'd say he counts as one. A lot of people also talk positively about people like Henry Ford because "he paid his workers a lot and shiet". But really there's not much point in drawing a distinction between different "good" capitalists. They all have the same thing in common in that they're a positive, mostly symbolic example that you can focus on to ignore or justify the current, flawed society. It's just like the old stories of the just king or the benevolent slave owner.

Who would be considered to be the scourge of the capitalist society? The sort of anti-Buffet. Shkreli comes to mind, and people who live off of daddy's money

this is sad

That would be someone embodies all that is wrong with class society and capital: abuse of power, mistreatment of workers, conspicuous consumption, usury, the cruelty of market forces, you name it. There are countless examples and you can put them into a thousand different boxes. To say that they're the "scourge of capitalist society" is inaccurate, they're just regular capitalists, and behind the facade most of the "good" capitalist aren't much better. They become a scourge when placed in contrast to the ethical capitalists, but the truth is that's just capitalism. People like to think in moral terms, but all systems of property are inherently amoral.

Youre right. My question is in what sense people ever do consent to things

In the traditional sense of autonomy. As soon as you start expanding a lack of consent to metaphysical concepts you've lost

Correct, it means corporate attorneys are likely to be tall men.
This is the element of my logic.