Longpost on Prositution

Decided to make a separate thread for my opinion about banning/legalizing prostitution.


What Communists actually agree on is that DotP will be in charge, and it will be Proletariat that will make a decision whether or not casinos, drugs, and prostitution will be legal - and if so, in what way. Consequently, anyone trying to attach prohibition of any of those to Marxism as a scientifically proven necessity is a fucking liar and a revisionist. There is no place for cheap moralizing in Marxism.

In Soviet Union prostitution was deemed socially unnecessary - because people decided it so, not because Marx proved it wrong. Similarly enough, casinos were banned not because of Marx, but because general public made a decision. It also made a decision to keep state lottery and hippodromes.

What is not clear-cut here? Our objective is Socialism, not upholding morals of Bourgeois society. Consequently, prostitutes should be approached from the same angle as everyone else: what is their place in class struggle?

They are clearly not Capitalists - despite the retarded attempts to call prostitution an exploitation of men, because there is some objective (not derived from the sum of individual subjective opinions - but determined by the smart people, without anyone else's input) utility value, and then declare that prostitution does not have this magical utility value!

Depending on the situation, prostitutes are either Petit-Bourgeois, or Proletariat. In the first case, they might or might not be useful to us. In the second case, it would be a folly not to incorporate them.

Consequently, everything is quite clear-cut. We support organized (obviously under Communist principles, not Fascist/Liberal) sex workers, and are opportunistic (support only when it clearly benefits us) towards the individual. The same applies towards any and all occupations, be they truck drivers, actors, policemen, or drug dealers.

We don't do moralizing until after the Revolution. Only when we will be able to present an actual workplace for those whose jobs are deemed unnecessary, will we have the right to condemn those jobs.

Anyone who attempts to start moralizing before that moment accepts Bourgeois society as just and fair. However much pseudo-Marxist rethorics is used, this position is inherently counter-revolutionary.

I have no idea what this "socdem" position implies. As I already pointed out: we support organized labour.

Consequently, our priority is to create an organization run by prostitutes themselves (not SocDem politicians or "experts"), where they can themselves regulate their own job - and keep this organization free from being hijacked by Liberals, Fascists, or SocDem.

It is this organization that we would want to protect. When it comes to individuals as a whole - we don't have opinion.

That would be a lie. At least, for Marxists. Why would we support someone without even knowing anything (not even class - economic role) about them?

There is no inherent objective difference between singing for money and doing sex for money - only social. Consequently, it is society's decision to say whether or not something needs to be banned. That is the real position of Communists. For us it would be a lie to say that prostitution "needs" to be banned. We might say that it is harmful or beneficial in some specific context (under specific circumstances) to some specific person or group in some specific way. But there is no some absolute general "need" - without even "someone" who needs it.

P.s. Cockshott is a crypto-Technocrat. But I will not deal with him today.

Other urls found in this thread:


Nobody cares about your autism, go start a blog or something if you so strongly feel the need to publish your opinions.

Shut the fuck up. Countersaged.

We should seize the means of reproduction and distribute it among every fertile men so that we will get rid of prostitution and other societal ailments that are produced as the result of a lack of monogamous marriage.

Non sequitur, and you are already moralizing by wanting something else than capitalism while we have capitalism.

Why? You have to recognize that there is an actual choice before you can start punishing people for making wrong decisions.

Post-modernism is strong within this one.

No, saying that Capitalism of being inefficient self-destructive clusterfuck is not moralizing. It's objective fact.

Good post

Yes. If communism is the abolishment of classes and commodity production, than the cause of prostitution goes out the window in the same way advertisers or stock brokers would.
Whether advocating for banning prostitution or supporting prostitutes is the correct course of action. The debate stems from moralism and whether prostitutes are proletariat or lumpenproletariat, as can be seen from the thread you split from.
That prostitution is a result of a lack of decent paying jobs and as such many prostitutes turn to prostitution to pay bills or not go into debt, we can somewhat correlate this to the decline of socdem policies and increase of ancap-lite liberalization. As such advocating for worker benefits such as less working hours, higher wages, free healthcare and education would be advocating for policies that deterred prostitution more than criminalization(it is already criminalized in many cases) does. Given that these reforms espoused by relatively popular socdems, I called it socdem to save myself some typing.
Assuming prostitutes aren't considered lumpen or that they are not inherently antagonistic to the proletariat, it's obvious that most are from backgrounds that can't easily afford both education fees and living expenses while going to university. This would indicate that they come from a non-bourgeois background and will most likely end up proletariat if they aren't already. If prostitutes are current and future proletariat, then we would be fools not to support and include them, as you yourself said.

t. rapist

The fact you had the necessity of creating a thread defending prostitution say horrors about you.

First and foremost, prostitution is hardly the reason why all Communists became Communist.
Secondly, prostitution existed long before stock brokers. You really need to explain what "cause" are you talking about.

And, as I pointed out, there is no inherent rejection nor support of prostitution in Marxism.

Neither is. Marxism as such has no position on it - just like in LGBT questions.

No. The debate stems from:
1) false assumption that there is an "objective value" and labour could be unproductive if it does not produce it.
2) false assumption that Marxism is not scientific, but all-encompassing idealistic dogma that supposed to right all wrongs

Which are caused not by decline of SocDem. It is both the consequence of not having USSR around and rich running out places where they can easily squeeze some money out. Neither cause could be resolved through parliamentarianism.

Consequently, seriously thinking that:
could actually work is objectively wrong. The only point is to demonstrate to general public (and you) that the only solution is to support Communists.

Well, you are correct in calling them SocDem, but utterly wrong in thinking that this position is Communist. It is SocDem position that has nothing to do with Communists.

Please. If we are to operate within the paradigm of class struggle, the first thing we should concern ourselves with, will be the current economic role of prostitute. Which is either Proletariat or Petit-Bourgeois. Profession allows both. Consequently, we don't know whom we are supporting.

Additionally, supporting "their choice" would mean supporting profession, not people. I.e. support of clients, pimps, and whoever else is involved. What we (Communists) are supporting is class struggle - i.e. movement of organized workers. Not some "choices".

Yes, it is much more productive to pretend that Proletariat is not already exploited in other occupations to the level that people are willingly choosing prostitution.

Is Marxism always this much of a shit show? I came to this board looking for alternatives to the social decay of capitalism, if you can't even agree that prostitution is an objective evil then why bother

What's the point of arguing about prostitution under communism if it's just logically impossible under such set of circumstances? You can't whore out for money if there's no money.

So "personal property" doesn't exist after all?


I'm sorry, but you can't abolish "social decay of capitalism" without abolishing capitalism.

You can interpret Communism as a joint platform of all workers. Singling out prostitutes - and then making some decision without their involvement - is counterproductive, to say the least.

First and foremost, we are arguing primarily "prostitution under Capitalism". There is an idea that Communists need to have some sort of "strong position" on the question. I am clarifying the essence of this position - which does not consist out of unconditional support or similarly unconditional rejection.

Secondly, we are going to get "first phase Communism" (State Socialism) before real Communism. Then there will be a question if prostitution will be recognized as socially necessary labour - i.e. if prostitutes will be asked to "get real job" (or get one mandatory). Obviously, it is almost certain what society will decide, but the point is that it is cultural thing and has no relation to Marxism.

This is clearly a retarded attempt to defend the actions of economic parasites. Pimps GTFO.

Who exactly are the parasites?

Correct. But inferring that therefore we should do this or that is moralizing. Even the barest "we should communism because it is not inefficient, not self-destructive, …" already starts from a utilitarian framework, a system of morality with certain kinds of moral axioms that go examined.
However, if you say that communism will arise logically by deducing it from your analysis, that's different. Or that communism can arise, the potentiality objectively exists, and that people can make the choice to enact it, without implying that they should. Here is where the appeal to individual self-interest comes in, where you explain to people that communism has advantages that they can choose to try and make happen.

Reals > feels.

Prostitution still existed illegally within the USSR. I suppose this speaks more to how much of a DotP it really was though.

Not really. It is "if we want to live better, we should abolish Capitalism, since it is inefficient". I don't see any moral axioms here. Well, other than the desire to live better. Since claimed that "you are already moralizing by wanting something else than capitalism while we have capitalism", I have to clarify: is having self-interest moralizing from your opinion?


I'm sorry, do you expect to have no crime under DotP?

Again I cite snake oil. Takes labor to produce, labor provided by charlatans. Yet DOES NOT treat any disease.

So are these's 1800's charlatans providing value? Utility? If so why? Because people paid for it?

You definition of utility or value is so balls to the walls retarded. And so are you, and so are Marxists if they really believe value = people wanting shit.

Singing doesn't spread STD's or cause unplanned pregnancies.
I think that you felt the need to create an entirely new thread to cry about getting BTFO'd in the last sex worker thread regarding sex workers speaks volumes about you.

Saying that communism is in your self interest is not moralizing. It might be wrong depending on who you are talking to. But to say you should get rid of capitalism because of this, assumes egoist morality. And that's not an uncontested moral standpoint.

Realistically, prostitution is the only way I will ever convince a woman to have sex with me. This is why I'm a capitalist

They prey on the frustrated sex drives and alienation of men. Prostitutes generally charge several hundred dollars an hour. Depending on the prole that could take a day to a week to earn for the average prole.
How is that exchange not exploitative if they're both proles.

I've never seen convincing counters to it though.

What does any of this even matter? This seems to be the least of our concerns at this point.

And again I will point out that crime is not part of economy.


Delusions of grandeur, eh?

Come on. That's just self-justification.


And so does doughnut seller. Well, not on sex drive. Probably. People are weird.

Life is suffering, and then it ends. Nothing matters in the grand scheme of things.

And what are our grandest concerns? Where to get 200 thousand euro in bitcoins, hundred kilo of plastic explosives with detonators, and a thousand guns with ammo - or, at least, a team capable of handling high-end security software - and whatever they need for ~six months of work?

More that the proletariats actual desires (prositutes in this case) was ingruent with state policy on the matter.

Again I point out that snake oil doesn't produce value because it doesn't not fulfill the need it purports to, I make no judgement as to whether its a crime, a moralist argument.
Sex workers are the same way, they do not fulfill the need for sexual intimacy. They charge stupid high rent for a crumby bootleg of it.
Probably never has a man rejected the opportunity to be in a committed inmate relationship with a beautiful woman to continue to pay for hookers.
you just have stupid view of value is all


The claim was that prostitution alone could lead to negative externalities. It was refuted.

And so you've made a full circle.

Such refutation. The entirety of Marxism had collapsed.

Such refutation. The entirety of Marxism had collapsed.
Well you can’t refute it with out the ridiculous claim that charlatans are proles too

No numb nuts I’m equating the worthless “value” snake oil salesmen produce with the worthless or negligible value produced by sex workers. You just keep dismissing it because muh proles and muh technocrats

Are you literally 12? Here's a thought: maybe think of a way any sort of leftist actor will get within a hundred miles of any sort of power before you start jacking off to minute policy concerns that can only be handled once power is obtained. What does this matter when no coherent leftist movement has even been established yet and we're no closer to creation one that isn't just coopted by social liberalism?

I was confused, but thank you for clearing up all of this.


t. someone who is either older than 35 or non-male


When thinking or discussing an issue doesn't move forward anymore, the reason can be that we failed to re-think something because we were so sure about a crucial aspect, just because we are used to believe it to be that way and have believed so for a long time, without actually thinking about it. So, allow me to ask a question that sounds stupid at first (maybe it turns into something after a while, but I'm making no promise): What is the difference between prostitution and rape?

Class is an economic role, not a morally acceptable occupation.

Don't go asking existentialist questions for no reason.

Here's a thought: maybe think of a way any sort of leftist worker will get within a hundred miles of any sort of power before you start jacking off to minute policy concerns that can only be handled once power is obtained.

Oh, wait. We already did thought of such a way.

If you intend to establish movement, you need to understand both means and goals of this movement. Which this thread is about.

You are literally trying to put cart before the horse: establish movement with no goals, and forbid any discussion of those goals. Is this not the surest way to get movement hijacked? What are you actually trying to do here?

goes to here

I'm 24 and male but I sign under every single one of these words.

i'm not the user but i am a 25 year old man who will cosign on the catposter's post.

it’s fucking retarded that con artists are included in your class

A con artist can be a prole or a bourg though.

Now I'm moderately certain, he believes in moral Socialism, not uses scientific: "how can Proletariat not be the embodiment of everything that is good and holy?"

Which is why all his arguments do not actually represent the real basis of his opinion, but are justifications of his beliefs. Consequently, for all intents and purposes, they are irrefutable - nobody can challenge their basis (his real opinion) without knowing what it is.

Why are so many idiots obsessed with prostitution? There have been so many threads on Holla Forums about this fucking topic and I'm tired of it. I just don't understand why "sex work" is so overwhelmingly important. Yes, being forced to sell yourself in order to eat is bad, but that's capitalism. Prostitution shouldn't be set above everything else.

Because with prostitution the worker pretty much owns the means of production by default, the same being true for writers/singers/massages ect ect. Authoritarians think service industries outside of distribution/propaganda are a bad thing, and thus believe prostitution should be banned because how dare the worker not be subservient to state capitalism.

The moralizing bs is just OP being fucking retarded though. Capitalism isn't going to go away any time soon, and we need to be ready for it so that our own system doesn't just fucking collapse.

Calling you two grovelers men would be overly generous.

Retrograde nonsense. Women in the industrialized West are at cultural parity with men, or on a steep trajectory towards it, and the current trends in socialization are hostile to boys, if anything.

It's contested because not everyone follows it, and it's egoist morality because… well that's obvious, you reasoned that people should do X because it is in their self interest. But the should does not follow unless you first ascribe moral value to following self interest.

Prostitutes only exist because of alienation. They are reactionary.

In a large part yes, but in succdem countries there are still prostitutes who choose the occupation without alienation pressure. Not really justifying succdems here, but I don't see how the service is fundamentally different from an actual massage specialist, which is something I never here complained about.

As of this moments Technocrats will stop pretending to be dogmatic Marxists:

Karl Marx, Theories of Surplus Values, 1863:
> Are there not at every moment of time in the market, alongside wheat and meat, etc., also prostitutes, lawyers, sermons, concerts, theatres, soldiers, politicians, etc.? These lads or wenches do not get the corn and other necessaries or pleasures for nothing. In return they give or pester us with their services, which as such services have a use-value and because of their production costs also an exchange-value.

There. Marx literally agrees with me. Prostitutes create use-value. Now fuck off.

It's not. But the methods that get applied in coming to any conclusions - are. They demonstrate if there is an actual understanding of Marxism - or if someone just relies on platitudes.


If you are incapable of producing finished product by your lonesome self - you do not own all means of production. Infrastructure (organization) also functions as means of production.

Whom are you talking about? Communists are the ones usually being referred to as "Authoritarian Socialists", and I am the one here who is ML.

No. I'm reasoning that they will do it because it is in their self interest.

Rookie mistake. People only act in their perceived self-interest, and then only to the degree that they perceive they can.

Read the thread. The question is if Marxism is inherently moralistic.

Well this is a retarded definition of value. IA commodity is just, something someone wants and paid for. With no consideration as to whether they indeed GOT WHAT THEY WANTED!
So all the people that got killed by e.coil burgers were buying their own death warrants on purpose lol.
How about all the people that live in polluted areas, well they paid for those homes, so they must have wanted that cancer too.
You are BEYOND fucking stupid. May your dumbass ideology die with you.

Person who made the comment about prostitutes owning the means of production. While organization also functions as a means of production, I specifically ignored that in regards to my comment about prostitution. There are plenty of free lance ones in the us that aren't associated with "pimps". Especially given the illegal status of it in the US, freelance work requires a special drive of initiative that really rejects organization. Hell, because it is illegal most organized prostitutes are alienated.

Also as an actual technocrat I take offense that you associate technocrats with state capitalists. For the most part we accept desirables/luxuries with use value as well.

I'm ,

and you're fucking retarded. Use-value is the net positive or negative function a service or item gives. General use value is the perceived desire of that item.

The fundamental problem with capitalism (from my end) is that use value and exchange value are not correlated at all to the actual availability of the item/service, or even the use value of the item/service. This basically means that there can be an overflow of bread on the shelf but a homeless man can die of starvation just outside of the store. Not to mention the fact that availability decreases exchange value of even essential products, so it's ideal to decrease the availability of essential goods to keep the market value up. All this creates a fucking parody of logic where there is artificial scarcity in both overabundance and purposeful underproduction.

Yes. Those (independent) own their MoP and are petit-bourgeois. But this does not apply to any and all hookers. Consequently, your statement was too general and, consequently, wrong.

Who are those "state capitalists" you speak of?

Nope, again, people can be FOOLED into believing a commodity furfills a need when it indeed doesn’t. I.e. scams.
So under communism black tar herion, asbestos, lead pipes, rancid meat, and homes and cars that are death traps because they have “use value”. This is next level an cap levels of stupidity.

*So under communism black tar herion, asbestos, lead pipes, rancid meat, and homes and cars that are death traps are permissible because they have “use value”.


"prostitutes should be approached from the same angle as everyone else"
Is that from behind or missionary?

Behind of course. What kind of fucking sick fuck does missionary?

I guess physics is not a real science, because it is used to make guns which kill people.


Well, no, under communism use value isn't the ultimate arbiter, or any value for that matter. The use values that will be produced are those that have been democratically decided should be produced. By bringing the production process under total democratic control, transparency and oversight, you get rid of all obfuscation. We will know what will be produced, under what conditions, by whom, for whom, and will have chosen it so.
That should get rid of most scams, as well as use values the community as a whole deems reprehensible. As far as social production goes. Absent a total police state, you can't really police individual production.

What are your thoughts on Lenin telling Zetkin to reintroduce prostitutes into productive work. He didn't seem to like that she was radicalising prostitutes over the industrial workers.

None. Not at least you'll give me the quote. As you presented it, the question sounds somewhat surrealistic - it's as if Zetkin ever had an ability to do this.

Again, quote. Attempting to answer questions without context makes no sense. If I'll have to make assumptions about the meaning of your question (i.e. if I have to guess) I would point out (again): prostitution is an occupation without inherent economic role (class) - unlike industrial workers, who almost uniformly are part of Proletariat.

I don't follow, so those who fought to abolish child-labour and elderly-labour were counter revolutionary moralizers?

Try reading the entire OP.

ok thanks

The OP can be easily modified into arguing for the position that child workers should organize themselves and that doing anything against child exploitation before the glorious DotP happens would be moralizing/reformism/utopian.

Maybe !!uLSSnt0y8Q is the ghost of Guesde

It could be modified into anything, but will it make any sense afterwards?

Child labour wasn't properly abolished until after policies that took care of all children were created. Before that, if you were homeless and had nowhere to go, laws that forbid child labour wouldn't do you any good: there are no laws that prevent you starving on the streets.

Applying the same assumptions to hookers would to inevitable conclusion that you need similar approach - ability to provide total employment for the entirety of adult labour-force. That is simply not happening under Capitalism. It is the unemployed - reserve army of labour - that pushes profits of Capitalists up.



Point is, it makes as much sense after the modification as before.
>Applying the same assumptions to hookers would to inevitable conclusion that you need similar approach - ability to provide total employment for the entirety of adult labour-force.
Nonsense. People don't need jobs per se, people need food and shelter, and only need jobs inasmuch as these two are tied together. States where unemployed people don't have to starve exist. You are turning yourself into a pretzel in your pathetic attempt to get to a scientistificalimarxologifoolicooly argument for allowing prostitution, which for many women living in the poorer states who are not doing that as a little fun thing on the side amounts to basically the same as rape: be used for sex or starve. Now you want the haters to imagine a paradoxical quantum state where it is both always true that women are free to choose prostitution not because they have no other means of getting food and shelter, it's just a fun thing on the side to buy flimflam with the extra money and people loathing that are just irrational prudes, and yet at the same time it's somehow supposed to be a state where you starve if the evil feminazis succeed in banning your hooker job.

Next time you type a reply, please type with your hands instead of your penis.

>because there is some objective (not derived from the sum of individual subjective opinions - but determined by the smart people, without anyone else's input) utility value

wait what

Barely. If you call bare-minimum social provisions with all the indignities of being hounded by social services threatening to throw you off welfare if you as much as fart in the wrong direction a dignified existence, that's your mistake. Not to mention all the social stigma and psychological pressure it brings.
Saying that we can prohibit prostitution because the welfare state will deal with it is tantamount to saying you've abolished wage slavery for the same reason. Yet it is obvious that this is not the case.
Prohibiting prostitution is a hobby horse of well to do liberal women, not a bottom up movement.

This basically. I mean ffs, here in Denmark, a guy tried to set himself on fire outside a jobcenter not too long ago. Plus jobcenters have tried to stop people on welfare from being politically active.



How dense are you, if prostitution were legal almost all hookers WOULD be independent as they could turn to the state for protection. They can’t do that now because if they go to the state for help THEY’LL BE ARRESTED TOO.
This above all else give pimps leverage over hoes and keeps them oppressed in the criminal underground.

Fucking this, all I’d like to add isn’t that we should legalize hooking all the while recognizing its predatory and alienating nature, in the same way cigarettes are legal but anti smoking ads are the norm while most forms of smoking ads have been banned.

I'm a working girl.
can I be a communist?

Absolutely. The best thing you can do for sex workers is empower them with labour protections, access to health care, while at the other end cracking down on their actual exploitation via pimping. Abolish pimping first and foremost, and destroy organized crime syndicates that control it.

< Why can't those dumb proles just stay in comfy prisons?

>>'What will be the influence of communist society on the family?
We are not talking about Communist society here. If you think that you can have Communist society without abolition of private property (i.e. Revolution) - you are a fucking reformist.

Pray tell, why do we even need trade unions, if workers can just turn to the state for protection?

And let's not even raise the question of organized (social) labour being more efficient - and inevitably driving individuals out.

What exactly confuses you?

how is an utility value "determined by the smart people" not subjective? it's just a small nitpick but whatever. you could just be saying that it being subjective does not make it not real which im guessing is your real point

But pimps and criminals have to eat, stop being a revisionist moralizer

Anyone can.

If "determination" is understood as "discovery of existing quality" rather than "creation".

Are you forced to resort to "being ironical" because of your inability to present an actual refutation?

To elaborate: this is a continuation of discussion on what is "value".

In Marxist discourse value is divided into use-value and exchange-value. Use-value is an evaluation of desire (any and all "wants" - including "fancy") for specific individual (i.e. everyone has a different use-value for the commodity). However, on this board, there is at least one (imho, more) persistent poster who asserts otherwise and attributes objective quality (independent of individual desire) to use-value of Marxists.

This idea has nothing to do with Marxism and is based (in my opinion) on an attempt to stealthily incorporate ideas of American Technocrats (ideology) into Marxism, so as to justify effective replacement of DotP with the "meritocratic" rule of (Petit-Bourgeois) experts.

OP is wrong, you are all wrong. None of you is free of the sin of being wrong. Except this guy You are okay. In Capital, Marx wrote a lot about factory inspectors and reports by doctors about the health of working people and regulations, and he praised those who pushed for the regulations, and he told you about the positive effects of those regulations. He never said
He praised the factory inspectors and he lived to see the reduction of work-time happening and other regulations, and he praised the factory inspectors and was positive about the regulations in fucking Capital (yes, they didn't go far enough, yes they had loopholes, yes he knew that, no that didn't make them pointless) and you fucking hipster "Marxists" are calling utopian what we have ample working real-world examples for. What the fuck is your stance, if some people will break a law that means it's useless? And you think that was the point of Marx in Capital, which YOU NEVER READ YOU FUCKING CUNTS!?

But the OP specifically proposed to take intermediate measures: organizing sex workers in labour unions. Most of this thread would agree with you.

Are you Academic Agent?

As we live under capitalism and I need to eat, clearly, turning to cannibalism is a perfectly reasonable solution. Now, I have my copy of Albert Fish's Tastiest Roasts and I'm off to the nearest orphanage.


< resisting my specific brand of idpol is tantamount to cannibalism
Thanks for bumps.

Give it up. Sex actually isn't that important.




Isn't prostitution basically rape?
It's not rape if she has choice.
What choice? The choice to pay the bills with another job or with another fuck?
What if the choice is just the latter part, choosing fucks, is that enough?
The latter part is enough.
But why?
Whether I fuck her or not, she gets fucked either way.
So you figure you can't be a rapist by fucking a prostitute.
Of course I'm no rapist!
Suppose there is a gang-rape going on, and you see it, and you say HEY-OH, JOLLY GANG RAPE, why not join?
Why I what? What the hell?
She is getting fucked either way. So it's not like you personally are causing her rape, right?
Indeed, no man individually makes a difference here. She is getting fucked either way, so no individual is a rapist.
And since no individual is a rapist, no rape is occurring. That's what you think.
That's not what I think!
But what's the difference?
The prostitute is getting paid.
So, a little rape-fee makes the rape okay.
You don't pay a prostitute a little fee, you have no idea what you are talking about. They can pay everything from that.
Okay, so raping somebody and then paying a fine based on the standard market price for sex makes it okay.
That's not what I'm saying.
What's the difference?
That they choose!
To be fucked by whom for money?
Okay, so I know two gigantic negroes, I call them Mr Donkey and Mr Elephant, and you can choose who of the two fucks you…
And you get money for that, and since you can choose which of the two does it, it's not rape. That's what you think.
That's certainly not what I think.
But what's the difference?
You have these two…
More choice!
Okay, I know more gigantic negroes. How many gigantic negroe dicks do you want to choose from?
I don't want any!
That's racist.
Very funny.
You want the choice of none-of-the-above, doing something else.
Yes, of course.
So you agree that people need that choice of doing something else than prostitution.
Okay, okay. Right.
Do they have that choice?
Yeah I guess.
You guess. But are you sure?
I know some and they aren't homeless or anything. They can work in other jobs, they have had other jobs.
You sure?
About the ones I have been with, yes.
Can you give such a guarantee about all the prostitutes out there?
So, when it comes to a woman that has no such alternative, what would you call her customer?
A rapist, I guess.

Given no alternative, her customer is still a customer, because he pays her to get a fuck.

Thanks for the insight, Ayn Rand.

So this is what I would have been like if Socrates had been a mongoloid. Mind = blown.

Wow who would have thought.

There is nothing to argue about. You simply disregard consent and will here no brook no argument. It's paternalistic to the extreme.

Please go hang yourself.

Stop reddit spacing you stupid nigger holy shit.

No, I think I'd rather live to rape you.

It's called readable formatting. You should try it yourself.

There is no "bastardization". And the term is not about "people who sympathize with the bourgeois". It is primarily based on the acceptance of Capitalist mode of production as fair. It is from this support of Bourgeoisie stems.

Arguments, please. Not baseless accusations.

You are delusional. As Communists we have no reason to support Petit-Bourgeois just because they are suffering under the yoke of Capitalists.

You are contradicting yourself. In this very post you claimed by that its about sympathies towards Capitalists.

Welcome to Scientific Socialism. We are all assholes here.

Marx, Letter to Sorge, 1877
> The compromise with the Lassalleans has led to compromise with other half-way elements too; in Berlin (e.g., Most) with Dühring and his “admirers,” but also with a whole gang of half-mature students and super-wise doctors who want to give socialism a “higher ideal” orientation, that is to say, to replace its materialistic basis (which demands serious objective study from anyone who tries to use it) by modern mythology with its goddesses of Justice, Freedom, Equality and Fraternity. Dr. Hochberg, who publishes the Zukunft [Future] is a representative of this tendency and has “bought himself in” to the party – with the “noblest” intentions, I assume, but I do not give a damn for “intentions.”

Also, you are wrong. I can imagine such "bleeding heart" movement. It's called wishful thinking Social Democracy and it doesn't work.

Where did I try to seek "Socialist Morality"? Also, you are wrong: it will not "develop from old". As any morality, it will develop from existing conditions. I.e. it will require Socialism to function.

So, do I really need a proof?

False. Workers are not selling just time. Any worker must actually work.

I distinctly remember that there are hookers who willingly choose their profession. I.e. they objectively consider prostitution to be lesser evil - as opposed to other alternative occupations.


Welcome to the dirtbag left, baby doll.

You and OP are not the dirtbag left, you are just full of liberalism. Your "analysis" (which looks rather like a jumbled mess of ex-post justifications) starts at the individual instead of society.

Gee, are you guys nazbol gang now, too?


This. I wonder if he will ever get around to reading Capital. If he does, he'll find a lot "bourgeois paternalism" in that. I have a vision of his future posts: "What's with all the bourgeois moralizing by Marx about living conditions? Maybe people want to live in a cramped space where they have to poop into a cabinet."

Yeah, No.

"But prostitution is based on private property and falls with it. Thus, communist society, instead of introducing community of women, in fact abolishes it"

-Frederick Engels 1847, The Principles of Communism

There's no room for "deciding" about prostitution, as there wasn't any room for "deciding" about child labour

aaaaand back to the beginning

Your post has argument deficiency. Also, try using quotes from Capital to illustrate your point.

Get your head out of your ass. We are talking about pre-revolutionary stance on prostitution.

Confirmed for never reading anything.


Imagine a person who carefully examines every potential sentence in his mind before it comes out of his mouth or fingertips, always asking himself the following question: Will saying this be optimal for maximizing the probability of preserving my Holy Right of fucking bitches for money?

sage feminist threads
ignore feminist posters
hide feminist images

imagine a person whose every post is a twitter-tankie pastiche of actual feminism

If this isn't abolished with capitalism, then I don't see what the fuck any of us are doing here. This isn't a tiny issue, its the very crux, the fucking point of everything communism stands for.

For fucks sake OP post is at such a high garbage level that they are single handedly shaking my resolve.

You didn't read OP post.

Truly the greatest motivators for my posting.

not feeling like making another major post, so I'll go short.
Yes and accepting the Capitalist mode of production ("as fair" is an interesting choice of words for a "Scientific Socialist", lmao that you delineate this as if it isn't the vast majority of socialists) is sympathizing with the Bourgeois! Why do I feel like this post is going to be you nitpicking?
How is it a baseless accusation that you refuse to take a stance on anything outside of purely "productive", "necessary" things, when you yourself maintain we should ignore the rest and leave them to chance? This is obvious to anyone who has read your post, and I mocked you about it.
That's not a refutation to my insult/criticism, that's your main point restated. Really got my noggin running in circles.
Remember what I said about nitpicks? I should join a circus and guess cards. Yes, I did say bourgeois morality is morality sympathizing with the bourgeois, and then I went on to say that you are a bourgeois sympathizer, or perhaps a wannabe/poser. Or, to rephrase, someone who is l, ironically an example of bourgeois morality. God next point please.
I couldn't care less if we are "assholes" or not, this isn't an argument for anything you stand for. This is stroking yourself off as an edgy antimoral superclass, lame.
God I would hate to be a figure and have my writings be used like this. Nothing I said is unmaterialist, I made my arguments purely out of the actual character of prostitution as labor, and I mocked you along the way. Not my fault you can't into arguments.
Wow, nice job LITERALLY moralizing! "Oh they are bleeding heart and are bad". SocDem is bad because it is ineffectual, not because it's followers were too sensitive. Even if this was a mistype, you have done a nice job divorcing yourself from the real character of the world in favor of your empty analysis of "the bad feelies" and the "good thinkies". Marx would be proud (sarcasm alert for ease of reading) that you INSIST on a one sided look at things through a "materialist" viewpoint that comes down to "I know basic critiques of Capitalism from Marx but can not into anything outside of this and LITERALLY advocate against taking other positions".
I'll start with the nitpicking, as I fell quite smart for predicting this. It will develop from the old, as in the old conditions of society. Do you know what the old conditions of society were in reference to the new morality? The present existing conditions you nitpicking fool!!! I identify as a Seeker of Socialist Morality because you reject any current attempts at Morality , which means we will all have to wait for the brand hot """"'Socialist Morality"""" which Socialists don't currently have but you never mind that.
Wow, you got me, btfo, I guess I said they were different and then said they were similar… Wait, no I didn't you dishonest fuck, I said they were more similar to eachother than production as a whole. Nice job not making an argument, really fancy footwork.
At this point I feel like it would have been easier to hire someone to anticipate your nitpicking rather than personally respond. Yes no shit they have to work. We both live in society, and it's not even like my post is built on worktime divorced from work, you know, the one situation in which you might have had a point with your nitpicking. Alas…
Wow and I distinctly remember people that enjoy Capitalist exploitation, guess they aren't alienated! RIP Marx, I'll pm the BO and have Holla Forums shut down, shame you won't see this post I worked on.

Bertell Ollman writes that he has no doubt that getting workers
Which is why people should have a least a rough idea what the better system is going to be like. Ollman has read thousands of pages of Marx, and in this essay he shows what comes to light when taking together a ton of side remarks Marx made. There is also something about sex, which is why I'm posting this:
I don't see how anybody could get a pro-prostitution position out of reading Marx.

It's not like this hadn't been attempted by a dozen larpers in this thread already.

I don't dare to ask how the major post would've looked like.

Because the question of prostitution is decided by the society. Which is the one that operates with such ideas as "fairness".

Because there are no arguments, only incoherent ranting.

And what should I do, if you deliberately ignore my main point and pretend that your whining hadn't been already refuted?

You mentally ill. Seriously. Go see a psychiatrist or something.