Be middle-high end escort working my way through college

Why have /marx/ when there's already Holla Forums?

Something like 15% of coeds have considered or engaged in prostitution to pay for college. Brave new world user.

Holy shit, in the US?
Man, why go to college at all?

Not necessary worker revolution but more an Insurrection for the liberation of the self by the forces of the economy. No more obligation to work to gain the means to your substance. (Work to get food, housing and the means to Live)
Maybe watch this btw, its another piece by Bob Black.
youtu.be/Ie5zO-mF31M

pls

There was a pretty good thread a while back about prostitution, from one with a more cynical perspective.

The conclusion was that prostitutes are heavily exploited proletariate.

Because it's a class thing.

Then what are they?

Assume any service industry worker though.

I'm having a hard time accepting the conceptualization of the (individual) human body as a (social) means of production, and on an ethical note, the justification of utilitizing your body as a mean to an end.

They are petit bourgeois

Plus, the service industry as it exists now wasn't really a thing when Marx lived so you can't fault him for not including it in his analysis

Because it's essentially what a high school diploma was years ago and without one it's minimum wage and low hours. If 15%(doubtful because that includes those who have considered it as well as have done it) have to whore themselves out to be able to pay for it, that's a good argument to why it should be free. And why capitalism is shit.

It's like working any physically demanding job.

Only law partners are petite bourgeois, the junior ones have no ownership.

They're also not really proletariat.
You could call them ultra-spooked lumpen aspiring ptit bourgeois but that doesn't sound too good.

Are you the same prostitute who posted here a couple months ago?

Absolutely retarded. Now show tits.

lack of anarkiddie and socdems. the downside is we have DPRK apologists, but those are rare and occasionally looked down upon

Then you admit that in many cases the classification of lumpen is stupid, which was my point.

No, wasn't here months ago.

Why should I specifically go there to discuss this though?

intelligent mods and BO who actually get involved in discussions rather than stay idle and ban everyone who dont fit in their narrative leftypol mods. if you go there you can find Holla Forums bait threads with intelligent arguments and explanation instead of muh sage all fields like on leftypol

Exactly.
But isn't it also a good argument to not participate in that system and move into the country-side and start your own self-sufficient coop?

I'd sooner do that than be coerced into sex.

That's a persuasive enough argument for me.

downside is it's full of dumbass tankies

/marx/ is a shithole. Don't go there.

So it's obvious you are not open for discussion, you came here to defend at all cost your notions that please you.

As said
you might as well post pics of your merchandise.

Hello Ismail. How many times have you came on your Hoxha pillow?

Yes and no. Ideally that would be good, but the capitalist system makes it unfeasible on a large scale. If too many people tired that I would bet they would end up "violating property rights" and get cleared out.

I haven't heard any remotely compelling arguments framing prostitution as inherently lumpen as a profession. I asked if there were any.

I will neither confirm nor deny that this is in fact my merchandise, but I can tell you that it rents for $300 an hour.

Well, of course, at a large scale it would have to do a coordinated efford.
Just, with a system as exploitative, hard-boiled and frankly unstable as this one, it's better to be rural and self-sufficient. That way we have nothing to loose if the system collapses, and we get to decide how we want to live for ourselves.

Why do you go to college? Would the simple life as a self-sufficient rural worker not be better?

That's what I found anyways.
I was studying as a chemical engineer. That shit stressed me out when I realized I would be doing something I had no passion for the rest of my life.

If that's you, your body is fucking amazing.

I guess some guys are really desperate

Because doing what I do affords me a better standard of living than the standard of living of a subsistence farmer in the middle of nowhere, and while I respect that lifestyle and the ideology behind it I do not feel compelled to accept the sacrifice associated with it.

What for theory have you been reading anyways?

Are you sure?
Having to work long hours in a job you're probably not that passionate about it "better"?
Why? In a system that is hard-boiled and may fail at any minute? Where you may risk not having a job and not be able to provide for yourself? Because it will give you a little more stuff?
I've had a lot of stuff. Didn't make me happy.

Now freedom does. The emancipation from bosses. Calling my own shots, deciding the hours of my own work-day.

It is simple and that is what life should be.

Marx-Engels reader, lots of Christopher Hedges, various papers written on Communism post-Cold War.

Uhhh, I take every fourth week off and rarely work 8 hours a day? I call my own shots, and decide my own work day, and who I see and don't see.

What do you think escorting is like lol?

Farmers don't do that at all though. Are you sure you've actually thought this through?

Outside of harvesting and planting season their schedule is very flexible.

Lol that you actually believe that. Farms are endless fucking work.

Yeah, but you're studying something aren't you? Something that will lead to another job for some kind?

Or is your plan to be an escort forever? I might have misunderstood.

Depends on whether you're a farm-worker hired by a farmer, or an actual farmer. As an actual independent farmer, the work-days are usually fairly short, except in spring and near harvesting-season.

Also, it comes with the added bonus of self-sufficiency.

Yes, I am studying. But escorting affords me the ability to use the money to start my own business and switch to a bourgeois lifestyle if I so desire.

Did either of you actually grow up around farming or are you just repeating something that you've heard before?

I did. My grandfather was a farmer and now I am the same.
There isn't all the much work unless your run a factory farm with animal husbandry.

How big is your farm? What do you grow? How much do you grow? What sort of facilities do you operate?

Does your boyfriend know?

I've worked on a few farms. You'll have various things to do throughout the day but most of it is spread out.

Keeping livestock is another story. That is where you'll be getting up at 4 In the morning to feed and attend to their needs. But even with husbandry there is a lot of downtime.

I don't think you're getting me m8. It sounds nice and probably would work out well for a small group of people. But if too many try it we'd see crack downs and confiscation of property for "public good". We can't pull it off under capitalism because it isn't good for capitalism.

With the right machinery and enough people you could pull off farming with 4 hours of work. Granted such a situation would require a good amount of resources they likely wouldn't have.

Now show booty.

I never understood this either.

It's a cooperative farming-school.
We grow produce and we have a few chickens and a few cows as well, but not a lot.

I'm guessing one or two tonnes of produce every year, but I haven't actually asked anyone about the concrete numbers.

Now, I'm not trying to shit on escorting or even getting an education here, I'm just saying that a simpler life may be a better and more secure life.

It was for me anyways.

I'm single.

We're talking about different sorts of farming.

Everyone who has to sell their time in order to survive is a prole.

Yeah, except when you're sucking dick for money.

But I'm asking why the assumption that it's inherently lumpen.

We can't all be perpetually unemployed Jews mooching off our rich friends.

How much livestock at those farms? I've heard that factory farms are a nightmare.

Fuck off Holla Forums.

If you're good at something, don't do it for free.

What was the Jew good at? Besides writing fairy tales I mean.

Because of Marxist elitism.
Anarchists have never considered prostitutes lumpen, nor being lumpen inherently bad.

Do you believe that Jews rule society?
If yes, then they must obviously be good at something.

I don't know about you guys but I fully support legalized, regulated prostitution as they do in Australia.

If women are going to sell their bodies for money by being gold-diggers, it's only natural that for the less wealthy among us options are available. Keep doing what you're doing, leftyho.

Probably because of their association with the criminal underground. Is the lumpen even a real class?

These categories are kind of stupid and outdated imo, especially "lumpenprole".

Just because you aren't an overall wearing blue collar prole doesn't mean you should be alienated from the revolution.

We're talking about a co-op in a rural area. Unless you're a primitive retard you'd have machinery and more than 1 person comes with the territory of being a co-op. With enough people and machines it requires much less hours.

I'm not. And nor would I pay for sex if I was single because I could get it for free and am uncomfortable with fucking someone who is fucking me primarily for money.

Do you think escorting would impact a relationship? Would you cut down or quit it if the hypothetical partner wasn't comfortable with it?

And in another line of questioning, would you give up prostitution for socialism if socialism meant prostitution would be obsolete?

It's a designation.

You don't have far to look to find people who think so.

Sounds expensive.

If someone didn't like it yeah.

I wouldn't be comfortable with a partner who didn't like it.

Obviously.

Do you feel like you're a cynical person?

I get that sense that in marx's time most prostitutes were largely uneducated, and those that were were educated as women which was often centered around being appealing to men or being useful in the house. Wollstencraft identified this as hypocrisy to early liberal sensibilities, and that if reason was what separated men from animals, then the fact that women are capable of reason meant they should be taught virtue like men as opposed to superficial things. Indeed, Wollstencraft believed that if women were encouraged to be taught like men to think critically they would come to be virtuous with greater understanding of the world. What I believe her analysis was missing was the twin side to her optimistic hope for virtue, that while reason can create a greater understanding of what virtue is, it can also lead to great cynicism about virtuous idealism. She thought immodesty was at the heart of unvirtue, for the way it held back women's capacity to reason in her time. But what has happened is that though women are educated they remain immodest. I don't get the feel that you think what you're doing is wrong, although I'm sure on some level you dislike the commodification of the human body and it's emotions. I just wondered if perhaps the reason you do what you do is because your are a cynic.

I don't know about the lumpenprole thing. I don't like the term at all tbh. I would say that most prostitutes are in fact conscious of their position in society.
But the fact that you're well paid may be good for you but it's irrelevant. Most prostitutes are forced into prostitution, have to endure catastrophic conditions and are sexually abused on a daily basis. You and other high end escorts make up maybe 5% of all prostitutes.

unproductive workers neither. Are they lumpen now?

jesus christ

Cynical? No. Realistic? Yes. Bigger rocks than our little undercurrent have been thrown at the machine and it's still standing, so it's best to make my way in it as best I can. If I cannot have socialist utopia then why should I not pursue a bourgeois life?

Most prostitutes in the first world are not trafficked. A few are. Many are in a gray area. It doesn't work the way that tv and movies would lead you to think that it is.

Because consumerism and gathering of material wealth is a never ending struggle that doesn't lead to happiness.

No, but being a well compensated worker is better than poverty, and being a Capitalist offers a better standard of living than well compensated work.

What do you look for in a leftist bf?

I'll take that as a yes

idk

Which is why I said it was impractical to begin with. A farming co-op under capitalism is ultimately unfeasible outside of a small minority. The fact is there is no escape from capitalism as long as capitalism is the dominant mode of production.

Do you think being an escort is an obstacle to having a relationship?

Not quite what I was asking. You've mentioned that you would like a bourgeois life funded by your prostitution and "madaming". Would you be willing to give that up for socialism?

thirsty fuck

For some but not for others.

If it seemed like a reasonable possibility.

what?

That is the egoist approach.
I see nothing wrong with that.
You will be my enemy though. Too bad.

can this meme please end?
There is no adequate way to meet qts online anymore because apparently its some horrible deed to be lonely.

After you're done with the Koch brothers, Oprah, the CIA, the FBI, the DEA, and the Bilderberg group I guess I'll be expecting you.

DAMAGE CONTROL DAMAGE CONTROL DAMAGE CONTROL DAMAGE CONTROL DAMAGE CONTROL DAMAGE CONTROL DAMAGE CONTROL DAMAGE CONTROL DAMAGE CONTROL

nice dubs

sorry if it appeared like damage control. I sincerely feel that way. I think all these taboos around romance and sex are very destructive.

To you I mean. Has being an escort been an obstacle to you having relationships?

But wouldn't it be against your interests? It's very likely you wouldn't be able to have the same extravagant lifestyle under socialism that you would have as a successful madam of high-end prostitutes.

And show booty.

Outside of the druggies who are clearly lumpen: Some are pretty class conscious I'm sure, others are lumpen as fuck, pic related

I for one would love to have a gf who is an escort. I feel like they'd be one of the few people capable of loving me for who I truly am and not just for sex.

To me? I haven't tried to be in one for a while.

Depends on how feasible utopia seems.

They may be lumpen, or they may be trying to move from prostitution into politics, in which case they're just bourgeois wannabes.

What meme? He's right. You're hitting on a literal prostitute on an anonymous image board. Join a club or something if you wanna meet semi-intelligent leftist women, faggot.

With the fairly high salaries and glamour status girls like this could probably be classified as petty bourgeois

Then are you classifying them as lumpenized, or do they know what they are doing?

what exactly is significant about her being a prostitute in this situation? I actually think it's cool that she is a prostitute fyi.

Op is pretty bourgeois though :3

Wait a minute I've seen that pic on halfchans /biz/. Are you the OP that went into sex working and wrote about it there?

That I am. /biz/ is pretty sad and desperate though.

I'm surprised nobody has pointed this out, well not really because almost no one here actually has read Marx), but a lumpenprole is someone outside the general economy.

This includes the criminal underworld, the homeless and illegal prostitutes.

Why does Marx say this? Because lumpenproles in virtue of their illegal labor are in essence at the same time both the wrenches of the earth and are parasitically survive sometimes against the lower working class.

In your case OP, if your profession is legal then you are not a lumpenprole. Marx was not making an elitist sexist point by his definition of lumpens.

My profession is not legal.

Why? My gf isn't a hooker but she loves me for things that aren't my dick and she's qt.

I meant in your case. Do you think being an escort is the(or a) reason you haven't been in a relationship for a long time?

Utopia is completely unfeasible and socialism(and communism) aren't utopian. If you did manage to make it as a madam or charge over 1K an hour it's likely you wouldn't have the same extravagant lifestyle under socialism. With this in mind would you work against your interests for socialism?

And show booty.

user, either she loves you for your dick or she's not a qt. You choose.

:^)

Answer his question, I'm genuinly curious too as to why you think the fact she's a prostitute means that she's "capable of loving me for who I truly am and not just for sex."
Women never love men for sex. That's what men do.

No, I like my momentary freedom.

I doubt that full on socialism will happen in my lifetime, and you'd probably get more mileage out of me as a wealthy financier than a farm worker to begin with.

Would I work against my interests for socialism? If it seems distant and unlikely then no, but the more imminent it seems the more likely I am to pitch in.

Men love men just for sex?

Well then with regards to your original question why lumpenproles cannot be class conscious is that they effectively a pseudo-class. Neither working class (produce capital in the general economy) nor part of the bourgeoisie (the legal exploiters). You are somewhere in between, because as a lumpen you cannot really share the experience of being exploited by capital. Your interests and antagonists are different, since you are effectively more smoothly appropriated and accommodated by either class, than how the working class is exploited by the bourgeoisie to extract surplus labor from them. (it doesn't surprise me in the least why you would want to be "upgraded" to the petit-bourgeoisie)

All I can say to this is while your situation is tragic that a young girl would be forced to do this kind of work for college, I think it is worth considering that Socialism doesn't only fight for the workers, but also for all of the wreched of the earth. If Socialism would seek to to create free colleges, livable wages and minimum free healthcare, why would you want to oppose it, if it would free you from your current situation?

Why would that be? Are sex workers the only grills capable of loving someone for things beyond sex and also being qt?

You've explained why you are in prostitution, I'm asking if you think being a prostitute has anything to do with why you've been single for a long time.

So what you're saying is that you're a fair-weather comrade.

Enjoy your cuck-tier husband while your ovaries shrivel and the vacuum inside you grows larger.

I bet you're studying something relatively useless.

You've debased yourself.

I'm not the AnCom who said he'd like an escort gf.
I was just implying that no way a chan-dweller can score with a qt if not because he has a magic cock or something.

Go home, Holla Forums. The rest of us are having fun.

Best answer I've gotten so far itt.

Because if we're talking about European style Socialism then I think that it's the recourse of an upper class needing social stability when it cannot guarantee some degree of meaningful class mobility, and while it offers some economic incentives for the poor I am no longer poor.

No. I'm single because I'm a young adult enjoying my freedom.

When everyone else leaves the comfort of their homes to go be hunted by black helicopters through the jungles we'll talk.

Make another Kekalonia and try to defend yourselves from the Fascists.

Rojava is not Anarchy.

I just finished thinking about your picture in the shower.
Thanks for that. :)

How is that a response to what I said, and okay I will remember to purge the Marxists next time around.

It's obvious I think that we are not Social democrats here, wishing to appease the bourgies, anything less than revolution is pussyfooting.

Also don't think that the word lumpen is an insult or derogatory. There are different degrees into which one doesn't fit in society from the mafioso to the prostitute , to the miserable homeless. Because of your "instability" as a class you truly have the power to chose over with whom of the two sides to align your self with. In fact the lumpenletariat can be even be emancipatory to the working class by showing them a way to transgress the normal political/moral order.

In any case thank you for sharing your experiences here, and it's nice to hear someone who is out there fighting daily in for his future, rather than all the inane in-fighting here, it really puts things into perspective.

Well I look good and my gf likes sex but there's more to the relationship than fucking.

Fair enough. I found it to be overrated but it's your life.

So you're not going to AEI and won't support socialism unless a revolution is likely to succeed. Honestly /liberty/ is probably a better fit for you.

because of a certain situation, I met a lot of prostitutes

I think most if not all were mentally ill or sociopaths

I'm not well read enough to know what that is.

What have Socialists ever done for me? As a prostitute NOBODY has my back, why should I cash in the fruit of my labors to help them without a guarantee?

for her future* lol

Indeed, Marxists have always looked down upon those outside of the legal structures of the economy, but not us anarchists.

We'd abolish the very laws that forces you to work under the radar without any real security, we'd abolish the police that would put you in jail for doing something that is not intrinsically wrong, we abolish the system that coerces you into prostitution to support your education; if you want to continue it, it'd be out of your own volition and your own volition alone.

My mother was a prostitute. I don't think you're lumpen. Do what you need to.

A bit sad that its your goal to become a petit-bourg, but you cannot be blamed for wanting a half-decent life

Man, that country already exists, and it's called Somalia.

I appreciate the sentiment, but I don't really think that Anarchism is for me.

Hi, I'm a meth addict and supplier. I really like Marxism but I get offended by being categorized as 'lumpen.' Please make me feel better by saying that my work is the same as done by wage slaves.

p.s. here's a picture of my body

now to sit back and await MY whiteknights!

Fuck off buddy. Drug dealing is a difficult job and more neccesary to keep society functioning than yours probably is

Narco-Capitalism actually fascinates me. It seems to be American mixed-market Capitalism's little brother, and people gloss over it when discussing whether American or European style Capitalism will win out in today's competition.

As a Marxist I stand by the right of women to use their bodies as a means of living. The idea that sexual intercourse is some special case of human relation that is sacred and in need of a special treatment of control different from other kinds of relations and labors is nothing but a secular remnant of Puritan views of sexuality.

A woman who makes it her work to sell sexual services either for teaching the art of sexual pleasure (like some of the old courtesans) or merely for her own gain for it is easy for her, is in no way exploited in any different manner to the woman who is by circumstances forced to perform back breaking labor in the fields for her living. People against the right of women being able to choose such a profession with legal recognition and protection judge for a woman believing they are saving her from a horrid fate of psychological trauma, yet these women are the ones who have let go of the spook of sexuality as something special as a natural bond between those engaged. Sometimes, comrades, sex is just sex.

I have no problem with prostitutes but honestly you seem like a bourgeois cunt, certainly not class-conscious in the least

Prostitutes must be executed Along with their users

I'm truly glad for you.

starts off with
[proceeds with an ethical argument]

So you aren't giving us a Marxist argument, just your personal position.

Pic related, btw, is the crucial definition involved. We should understand and criticize the pejorative connotations of 'lumpen', but as a question of class, it's not a subjective thing everyone has to decide for themselves.

So the Marxist questions are: what is the socially necessary labor time of prostitution? What is her commodity? Is it a commodity? Does she get a wage in the Marxist sense?

all the white knights and moralist rabble ITT

fuck off /r9k/

INB4 more idiotic arse licking comments in her favor: SHE IS CUT OFF FROM THE PROLETARIAT AND SHE ADMITTED ALREADY.

What's wrong with being a prostitute? I work in labor, so am I not also "selling my body"?

Do people here perhaps have a spooky view of what sex is?

again, the question isn't about the stigmatization that comes with the word 'lumpen'.
see
The question is about classes, which aren't subjective, or moralising.

They are degenerates or just horrible victims of degeneracy. Prostitution must be eradicated

this is the other, more idiotic side of the moralists, ITT

There is a massive difference between being a worker Who work for the good of society and a whore.

>I believe money and the >necessity< to work just disappear if my dumb rationalist beliefs state so

Come back when you've actually read real theory, son. The ONLY reason you can make argument >against< prostitution is, kek, through an ethical one. Tell me, why shouldn't a woman be capable of selling sex if she isn't spooked like you? Because it makes you feel bad, queezy? Get out of here, SJW.

Its not moralising. Its adherening to the truth

They aren't my beliefs.

I'm pointing out the contradiction of stating sexual liberation as a form of personal emancipation where the system which engenders that right is inherently one of exploitation.

What's absolutely stunning is that you turn this into an ethical argument.

Thanks for admitting that you suspend judging the question at hand by Marxist economic standards.

wew

Because It is shamefull towards future and past generations and de-grades society IF encouraged

thank god. anarchism is meme-teir ideology.

No, what's absolutely stunning is that you're so stupid you don't see you're making claims based on assumed ethical norms you hold, and that you think sexuality is something special. You're deeply spooked, son.

Yeah? According to who, people like you who are hellbent on keeping sex an idol and shaming those who aren't spooked like you?

Anarchism is falsehood

I'm not making it from an ethical point. They aren't my beliefs. The observation of the flaw in your point doesn't automatically stem from a failure of reasoning in mine.

How about reading a post thoroughly before replying next time.

Agitate. Educate. Organize. I dun goofed with the I.

Historically or personally? Historically it wouldn't be too far fetched to credit them scaring the ruling class enough to make sure you have some sort of welfare, weren't a child laborer, and so on. Personally, I'm not sure because I don't know you.

Honestly, if you succeed in your goals of becoming a (petit)bourgie, you shouldn't. It would be against your material interests, which you have said is the motivation behind being a prostitute. In such a case I'd recommend going to /liberty/ and becoming some strain of capitalist.

But if you don't succeed in becoming a madam and become unable to draw the same quality johns you could in your prime, there's a very good chance socialism is in your material interests. In such a case supporting socialism is rational because it would personally benefit you. Helping socialism would be helping yourself.

Prostitutes can be exploited by pimps, once we remove them there's no reason to ban prostitution imo.

Said the people supporting the movement based strictly on dogma that didn't come true and historical revisionism.

Truth™

How about you think about what I say?

Prostitution isn't a capitalist invention, nor an invention of class society. The whore is the oldest profession in the book. Do most women do it because they want to? No, they're forced to. There, however, women who aren't spooked and place no special value on sexuality. They whore themselves out because it's easy with lots of payoffs if you have the goods others desire. There are escorts that make more money in one night than you make in a year of work. You think they're exploited? These women laugh themselves to the bank and jail due to how utterly easy making their living is.

Socio-economic class: defined by the relationship to the means of production.

[/thread]

everybody under this line: kill yourself
—————————–

You don't know what my ideology is

If it is you your pricing is reasonable

Some kind of Marxism.

Welp

Your argument is a reflection of the belief that the right to operate on a profit motive is somehow empowering because it advantages a labourer.

You're missing the point that a prostitute is little more than a labourer, and that, arguing for their right to operate on the profit motive is a socially progressive act, because it enables prostitutes to recognize themselves as labourers, suffers the final flaw that they are in the end a body of labour.

Probably because your own notions of what sex is keep getting in the way.

...

Nice to see you've adopted the idea that well-paid laborers are in fact not proles, AW

What does AW stand for?

Always Wrong?

Anal Wanker.

Ooooh, I see. You're a left-com.

I hate left-coms so goddam much. Worst idealists of them all, worst than anarkids. This isn't your ideal world, this is >this< world. You bet your ass I will argue for the betterment of proles and women in this world and not a future utopia. Just because you believe what you do does not make it useful nor true.

They're not exploited because, ahem, they're not proles in many cases. Those women making $30k a night? They're not working under anyone, they're self-employed. Learn your technical terms.

It's the first criticism made by Marx on the basis of his critique.

The extraction of the surplus from labour. Have you even read Capital?

wtf are you some kind of Venera?
Who would pay that much? Rich people swim in pussy anyway, and poor fucks, well, they are poor.

Man, you really triggered me. It takes me two weeks to make 300, and i'm a fucking welder, which is considered to be a well paid job (hello from eastern europe, btw).
Gods, i'm sure glad there's such thing as HIV in this world.

I have, and it's based on that very concept that I just told you why they're not exploited.

Once again, this is for self-employed escorts. Most prostitutes are not of this kind, nor want to be prostitutes at all. These women will not go into such a profession in a socialist world where they don't have to.

I'll take the marxist critique of capital, the early critical theorists description of base/super-structure analysis, stirner's critique of fixed ideas, and lacan's psychoanalysis, but just to understand and analyze the world.

In terms of building an alternative to capitalism, I think that RDW's market socialism, Rousseau's social contract, and Bookchin's communalism/libertarian municipalism are what's needed to create an effective political economy.

To achieve this I think we need a mix of Machiavellian pragmatism, Jacobin idealism, and Trostkiest entryism, whenever most advantageous. That's my ideology.

Oh.
So you're a pretty special little snowflake, who likes to shit on anarchists even though you're an anarchist.
Cool.

The very concept that you tried to defend under the profit motive then couldn't when you realized what that entails? Okay.

Better call those Greek women selling themselves for sandwiches and tell them how not exploited they are then. And those hookers with pimps that beat the shit out of them. Good thing we got Anal Wanker here to tell these people how great they have it.

So you're saying that, although they offer their labor for money, they're not actually workers.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proletariat

dictionary.com/browse/proletariat

marxists.org/glossary/terms/p/r.htm
Proletariat

Bookchin renounced anarchism dumbass. I'll take a state any day of the week over pure dogma.

At *best* you can argue that it's not expansion of capital with is questionable at *best* when you consider that the very existence of money in and of itself carries the implication of capital expansion and you yourself admit that they are bringing in money

Bookchin "renounced" anarchism in the sense that he gave it new labels and reformed it slightly in that he thought that non-states should develop within the states and use the bourgeois democracy to sabotage itself from within.

In all other ways he way an anarchist in content, if not in form.

Marxists think that they were using states to get rid of states too.

And anyway I'd be perfectly content if the state as Rousseau and Bookchin described stayed.

Back in the day when most good socialist literature was written there were not many high earning, empowered, sex workers.

And none had a decent education

Bookchin explicitly doesn't want to create a state or use the state, though.
He wants to hollow-out the state from the inside. He's vehemently anti-statist, he's just a gradualist.

Thus, an anarchist.

she's clearly a high class hooker dude
you'd be surprised how many rich cunts actually pay for prostitutes despite probably being able to get it for free.

I don't work for the good of society. I work for a wage

I think he was commenting on how absurd it is to pay what he makes in 2 weeks, as an Eastern European welder, for an hour of fucking. I make about 4x what he does, as a burgerlandian, and half a weeks pay(before taxes) to fuck a girl I could pick up for free is insane.

...

oh yeah i'd never spend money on a hooker especially one that expensive
but he also seemed surprised rich piggies pay for sex

Yeah, the high class hookers seem to be there for guys with relationship issues or for guys who need someone to do weird shit they wouldn't want getting out there. Either way it ain't a surprise, porky pays for anything that gets his rocks off.

OP if you're still reading just disregard the faggots - any section of society has the ability to be class consciousness and contribute to the worker's cause. Granted, some less likely than others, but any real leftists wont 'reject' you just because of what you do or where you come from.

Hopefully you decide to learn more about leftism mainly Leninism

this
there are way too many Holla Forums tier responses in this thread

Muh Niggah!

The issue isn't that she's a whore, it's that she wants to become a porky. How do you expect someone whose primary motivation is to become an exploiter to contribute to the worker's cause(s)?

Surely that's the same kind of logic as 'you cant be a socialist if you buy stuff'.

There is nothing wrong with engaging in capitalism when you live under it. You can realise the system i bad, but at the same time you cant do anything about it, so may as well make the most of it if it dosnt make a difference either way to the system existing or not.

Nope. It's the same kind of logic as "you can't be a socialist if you want to privately control means of production".

There is a difference between grudgingly being exploited in order to survive and dreaming of someday exploiting others. If the hooker did achieve her dream of becoming a bourg, that would make her a class enemy whose self-interest is opposed to the worker's cause. Why would you expect someone in that situation to help out.

Yes, AFTER she become a class enemie, up against the wall.

UNTIL THEN we raise class con.

But you can be. Just be willing to co-operate come the revolution. That's the only important part.

I wouldnt expect her to. That dosnt mean she cant.

And if she's a class traitor that would rather support the capitalist system? Do we give her a pass and let her backstab us for her 30 pieces of silver?

But she isn't willing to cooperate unless it's likely the revolution will succeed. That's an opportunist who would stab us in the back of shit hit the fan and I'm not willing to take that chance.

But the question isn't "can she?" it's "will she?". Judging by her posts I'd bet the answer is "no".

Maybe,, but who said anyone who is bourg would be given any real power in a revolution anyway?

Well I'm not just referring to her specially, I'm more saying that anyone who is bourg can be socialist if they want to, it's just more unlikely that they will be.

Anyway I have to sleep so I wont be replying any further.

Who said they needed any power within the revolution to strike against it?

OK, fair enough and I agree. In this case though I'd say it's clear we don't have a reliable ally in a hooker that posts on Holla Forums.

Sleep is for cockless cowards, no surprise a Leninist would rush to it.

:^)

Damn it

Glad to hear it.

Are bourgeois inherently class conscious?

Ah. Well, I'm pretty sure that I'm thoroughly agitating to the system.

A bit of both. I would definitely give Keamy, Mother Jones, etc credit for paving the way for reform, but most of the intellectual type of Socialists, such as the Socialists who abandoned the Civil Rights movement at a critical moment, I'm doubtful of.

Praxis: is pursuing one's interests, regardless of labor or bourgeois, supposed to accelerate the coming of Communism?

That's circular reasoning. Pimps are criminals who can exploit prostitutes who cannot in turn go to the police because it is illegal.

Possibly thanks.

Man… google eccie, or TER, or back in the day MyRedbook.

Sounds like no true scotsman though.

How do you mean?

...

No. The wall.

No, but unlike the "lumpenbourgie" theory, they don't need to be. If they were, they wouldn't go for automation.

No, it's not!

The point is, do you want to be free, or do you want commodity fetishism?

It's true though. It's actually saying that anyone should be able to be a socialist, which is the opposite of a true scottman's.

So it's a needless argument.

Prostitution in the US is illegal.

Whichever is attainable, if you really want to present a false dichotomy with such charged alternatives as that.

No no, you've got it backwards. He's saying that anyone should be accepted, and that anyone who says otherwise is no "real leftists". That's a no true scotsman.

How?

The accelerationists would say so. And I wouldn't entirely disagree. The more workers realize their interests are opposed by the bourgs the closer we get to revolt.

You sir, are my comrade.

Maybe you're right. Either way the point is you can be a leftist if you want, dont let anyone here tell you otherwise.

By making large amounts of money while remaining independent of the financial system, effectively introducing competition unbound to existing Capitalist interests.

So Martin Shkrelli is a Socialist hero?

It isn't about being told whether I can be one affiliation or another, it's about gauging whether or not people of certain political affiliations can conceptualize my social position.

…
Everyday, I find out more and more about the capitalist hellhole called "the US of A".

Ok. Then keep living in capitalism, while promoting communism. Take the third pill.

Yes. And he's right. If you say "prostitutes, gays, niggers, criples are not my comrades" you are not a leftist.

lol you didn't know prostitution is banned in burgerstan?

Hmmm.. Now we go to the field of Accelerationism.

He WOULD BE if he knew what he was doing.
If he DOES know, then he is the best entryist ever.

However, showing the corruption of capitalism isn't enough.
The alternative has to be offered, or else you end up with Not Socialism.

Nope.
I thought "if in the shithole of Greece it's legal, as long as you pass medical exams and so on, and it even has unions.. .. well it's only normal it's also in the "west"..

So you're agitating the working class against capitalism by being successful under capitalism? I'm not sure I buy that or your independence from the financial system assuming you're paid in currency.

No, an effigy. An example of how they are against the proletariat's interests.

My revenue stream does not depend upon any bank loan, nor would I require start up capital or financial partners to start a business with that money, effectively creating alien petit bourgeois interests.

As to Shkrelli, I defer to

Ye, ok. This might get you through life.

But even this will be bought by corporations and so on, long term.

Sure. Historical materialism isn't about the individual.

Whores aren't contributing to society.

Yeah?
Tell me more about how you'd escape alienation otherwise?

But what your revenue is part of the financial system because it is money. You're still ultimately participating in capitalism, albeit in a black market capitalism. I would say that's closer to gaming the system than agitation, as I did when I bought a car with money made dealing.

Then long term they'll face revolt at some point. Not likely in our lifetimes though.

Is gaming the system not agitating to Capitalist interests though?

What alienation?

You are one of the most consistently idiotic posters I've ever had the misfortune to suffer from since I became acquainted with chan culture.

Not really. I wasn't when I was dealing. My friends didn't when they would steal shit and flip it. You aren't by starting a business with your fuck money. At most you're giving the entertainment industry antbites by taking away a potential customer for an hour.

I'm perfectly happy with antbites.

What do you think you are providing as a prostitute to society so that you have the right to enjoy the products of other peoples work?

The same thing anyone in the service or entertainment industry provides.

so… cancer?

Have fun in a world with no artists, musicians, actors, translators, and anyone else who doesn't physically make anything.

wew, m8, are you an artist too?

In some sense, yes. I'm an artist of veiling the degrading moral character and social status of my trade from myself. Took me a lot of practice.

You're not providing the same as a lawyer or other service workers.
In a communist society artists don't make art for work. They do it in their free time.
You can be a whore in your free time if you want to.

No sane person would go to work while you fuck and can demand the same service from society in return.
People like you are the biggest enemies of a communist society.
I'll become an artist draw some circles, call it art and demand services from society, is that fine with you?

So what's your main motivation?

Perhaps I would be too, if I was getting $300 an hour. But I am not, and I would wager the majority of this board is not either. Ultimately radical overthrow is our only option if we wish to one day live comfortably.

Convenience. Laziness. My thoughts circling around and my choices chasing instant gratification.

My values mirroring those of the order of money, first of all. Why should I work (albeit ethically – at least as ethically as capitalism permits) when I can have more shit this way?

I have always chosen the easier road, the lightest streams, the least resistance, and always thought about >me< first.

Funny. In the end I found that in the process that >me< was lost, reduced to flotsam.

So how can you go on in light of these truths?

Habit. I can't change them. That would require effort, and effort would require a person, a whole person that can have an honest internal monologue and conscience, not just a random poster doing these things instead of me in hopes that I could at least learn by imitation, or at least get conflicted in my self-complacency.

So what you're saying is that you feel like a shell of a person?

How pathetic are we.

Well you can do a productive job after the communist revolution. After you work your three hours of socially valuable labour, you can then do other things of a sexual nature for the proles (if you want)

How pathetic.

Nice PDF argument.

Sure is.

For once my analysis was correct, you are a model cynic. Nothing wrong with that besides the ineptitude that comes with it.

Observe the process of a tripfag being born: self-love, lack of self-criticism, "re-authentication" of her perceived "rightful place" in the universe at all costs.

nota bene

...

Only way to prove who's who is timestamped puss and/or ass

Just observe, breath in the new born tripfaggotry!

Observe the sexually insecure manchild: born of too much spoiling from mommy, a bitter hatred of all things that make his pee pee hard but won't play with it, and the permissiveness of the anonymous internet. Willing to play at a ruse then act as though it's part of some Master Plan that involves wasting inordinate amounts of his own time and energy. Not content to let others have a conversation that doesn't revolve around themselves, he inserts himself through obnoxiousness where personal magnetism and argument do not allow him.

Yes, yes! Moore! MOOORE!

also

You sure spoil a lot of guys if you know what I mean.

I don't think your clients hate you tho. Well, not most, but shame is certainly involved on both sides. Some disregard it, some project it on the other.

Come on, at least a few of them must have licked your cunt.

The whole discussion on whether she is part of the working class ended in these posts.

I'm not a moralist, but equating the working class with the lumpenproletariat is an insult to them and completely unhelpful to our cause. Lumpens are their own think, stop thinking otherwise.

Also I personally find it disgusting that one would bring up justifications for a woman selling her body to get through life. I have met whores in my life, and even been with some, and I can tell you none of them really choose that profession. Such people are part of the "knave" class, they are to be pitied and helped, not to find excuses for their predicament.

Our experiences differ. I've had a long conversation with a prostitute on a train ride about the "industry," but usually arguments based on experiences aren't very fruitful on imageboards (yours vs. mine)…

Even our harlot here starts off with stating that she's already OK financially. It's not a "phase" for them, a way for getting back on track. It's becomes a lifestyle. And they do get broken morally and they do try covering it up, and this is what allows them to continue the cycle. Most porn "actors", for instance, fall back to the "job" every five years or so rather than starting a stable life, finding work. It's an up and down thing: good money in little time, parties, they survive on it for a period and fall back.

I consider nothing more despicable than false empathy with their misery if it serves as a justification for them at what they do. The thread starter, as was pointed out, implicitly has this message: "so I like you guys, but could you stop judging me?"

And the answer can only be: "No! You start judging yourself!"

Then we can have an honest conversation. All other things in this thread was a charade on her part, glorification of her misery, "muh oldest profession," muh wymyn dygnyty, muh body muh rules.

Shit, bitch, you have no rules.

and as for Marxist classification: she is lumpen

Well it was kinda obvious she came her seeking some sort of approval or atonement. She believes in Marxist analysis at least on a basic level and yet refuses to do anything about the problems and injustices that analysis highlights.

She works to perpetuate capitalism even though she doesn't like the result of it and then comes to us asking if the good religion works even for sinners. pure ideology at its finest.

what do you expect from Holla Forums? Nobody here actually reads and I think most people here are very young and lack real life experiences all together so they resort to emotional arguments. As for her, yes she could have very well chosen this to get through life, but I think it would not be unwise to consider the stigma such a life involves. Even pornstars
who are effectively now completely accepted as part for the entertainment industry, live miserable and sometime abusive lives.

Also a shitload of white knights trying to rescue fair maiden OP, or thirsty fucks like that pathetic ancom.

Yeah, but the system works like this: retards sperg out, intelligent folk get angry and get on their autistic level OR try to explain shit calmly with no success, so intelligent folk trolle them OR experiment with new forms of communication/invent new OC, so the idiots get proportionally more buttblasted then the intelligent folk. In the end everybody loses, but somewhere in between we had fun, one side got better at getting their points across and the other side might have even learned something. Or not. The other side usually just repeats the same shit over and over again. Doesn't matter. Had fun.

OP is a shit person and she secretly knows but she won't accept it. I did my best to show this to her and to others, end of story. Somewhere in between there was some little Marxism hidden too. Maybe she learns something, maybe not. I had fun and she rots in her personal hell.

...

If you just make meth yourself and sell it without exploiting others than you're fine my dude

if you a prostitute to yourself only (getting paid by yourself for masturbating yourself) you k in my book too

Hard to balance in this case. On the one hand one of her premises is true: stigmatizing lumpen is pretty shit thing to do. It's a systematic thing, yada yada.

On the other hand she lets this cover her own ethical choice in the matter, nullifying it, if you know what I mean.

Same with addicts, btw.
Well, yes and no.

Isn't she just selling her labour power to others? Presumably any value judgment the client makes about what he's purchasing puts what he's getting out of it at higher than what he's paying her.

I'm really not understanding where the lumpen part comes in. Her service allows one to save time and labour on finding a sexual partner for those who have difficulty with it, allowing them to fulfill some other part of their lives with that time and effort. Isn't this pretty similar to what a doctor, babysitter, gardener, cleaner or anyone else in the service industry does?

forgot your flag

He wants to hollow-out the state from the inside. He's vehemently anti-statist, he's just a gradualist
…by using the municipal and local levels of government…you know, the ones that are a part of the state. Also, pls read Rousseau, he provides an excellent outline of what a legitimate state would look like.

What are you trying to say? Use your words. Accusing me of being an ancap doesn't mean anything, nothing i said supports or defends capitalism in any way.

One way to put it: is she a vital part of the economy as we understand it (as the system in which we reproduce our civilization), or is she filling up the cracks, created by this very system?

Another way: what is her relationship to the means of production? Zero, none. Your body is not a means of production. Having sex is not production (contrary to conservative myths if you know what I mean), just like breathing is not production, or kissing, or breastfeeding. You have to be selling-children-Rothbard-tier retarded to consider these as valid forms of commodities.

I mean sure, there's a market for cannibalism and vivisection too.

It shows you've bought into the capitalists kool-aid I'd you think the creation of value for the sake of value is a good thing, that the human body, human emotions, hell, even the human soul should be commodified if it creates value in exchange.

It's a strange way of valorization through degradation.

Degradation of my dignity, my body, my ethical agency → valorization of this resignation.

What's consumed isn't in the act (sex), it's what precedes it.

i.e. you can't. sell. love.

And its perfectly possible for cannibals to be forced to make a living by selling their labor (as cannibals) and being exploited in the process.
What the fuck does any of that have to do with ancaps? Ancaps support that kind of exploitation and call it "voluntary".

Of course she's filling up the cracks created by this very system, but so are psychiatrists. She is necessary to the productive process only because the productive process is flawed and broken which could well mean her role becomes irrelevant after the revolution, but I've never heard of the definition of lumpen being "something you wont get paid to do under socialism".

What? Its not a good thing, nobody is saying its a good thing or a bad thing or an upside down frog thing, just that she is working class and forced to sell her labor, even if it is in a way that is only seen to have value by the bourgeoisie.

The only kool-aid I'm seeing is the attempt to claim workers who sell their labor power are sinful and can't achieve class consciousness. Would the revolutionary potential of someone change if they sold their labor to a mining company instead of to businessmen who hate their wives?

I offered you two ways to approach the question coz I smelt your retardness from a distance. You chose the weaker one, twisted it ("something you wont get paid to do under socialism" – I never said anything that amounts to this) and sperged out. I can't help you.

Your opinion that you stand high and mighty above all others does not verify your argument or make it relevant.

Though it's hyperbole the point stands very strong, that being a prole has nothing to do with how vital you are to the production process but rather the method by which you engage in the economy. Those forced to sell their labor power to live are proletariat and are exploited by that process. You haven't debunked or even challenged that point, just tried to shift the conversation to how useful her role is to society.

How?

What labor? If I get paid by a rich sadist for stabbing me what kind of labor is that? It's not social, ergo meaningless from our POV.

It's even worse than a mud pie: that's just stupid. In her case everyone involved gets damaged, society as a whole too.

Anyone can achieve class c. Even bourg.

Also "you gave me two ways" what the fuck does that mean? I have to pick one of your two strawmen or the conversation doesn't exist?

this is getting aethism tier, my dear friend

The working class associating with lumpens destroys any direction the class movement has ,and shifts the demand of the working class for the alleviation of poverty or even worse "rights". Since lumpens do not provide socially beneficent labor, or produce commodities (but rather re-appropriate it from either teh working class or the bourgeoisie) they cannot be allies of the working class.

Well I think the human body and it's soul shouldn't be comodified, you were justifying that commodification by saying it's just a part of the process of creating value.

I also realize there is nothing op can do to stop that commodification, I just think they're being hippocritical and that the question they pose is one that is asking for forgiveness or confirmation that what they're doing isn't wrong, even as they do nothing to oppose the larger machine they are a gear in.

Then what you've comodified is a debasement of yourself in its totality, mind, body and soul, which is just as bad if not worse

Yeah that tends to happen on imageboards. See for another example.

No, i was not justifying it, i was explaining what happens in the capitalist system. I honestly don't care that much about OP but more about the idea worker's aren't workers unless they are arbitrarily close to the most vital parts of production.
A doctor doesn't produce anything themselves, they assist the worker in maintaining health so that they can do so. A prostitute serves to fulfill a social or mental desire to assist the worker in that very same role. Yes that desire only needs (in most cases, its a generalization) a prostitute to fulfill it because of the alienation and damage of capitalism but that doesn't change the status of the worker.

If you got stabbed you have to recuperate, that work is done after the fact but it doesn't change that its a use of time and effort. What can labor be defined as if not those things?

What do you base the idea that everyone involved becomes damaged on? What categories and evidence do you use to make that judgment?

None of that description of lumpenproletariat changes whether or not a prostitute is amongst them. A prostitute can provide socially beneficial labor even if it is only beneficial to the current type of society. If the mode of production were to change and alienation were to be greatly reduced that could make the job irrelevant but it does not change the classification of those workers now.

Good points so far.

In my personal experience since lumpens have far less to lose than proper workers this effects their egos and the choices they make. They love to flaunt their radicality and they hate real struggle, unity, long processes and tiresome work as such.

A concrete example: I was approached by one such self-proclaimed "anarchist hobo" to join them in damaging the newly put up fences (against the immigrants from syria). I declined because I saw no potential in it building the class struggle. They called me -whatever- and told me that I was afraid to go to jail, that jail is not so bad, etc. I told them I have things to lose, and I'd rather get jailed for a strike, bossnapping, etc. than for totally moronic acts of symbolic heroism.

What happened? I don't know if they got caught or not. Right wing media had an article about suspected "left-wing radicals" damaging the fences because "they want our country to be invaded by illegal immigrants." The fence got fixed in a day.

I bet they were drunk the whole time.

In many cases wouldn't boss-napping be a totally moronic act of symbolic heroism?
There's a very good chance at the end of it the boss goes free and returns to his role (now with greater support and empathy from those who lack class consciousness) and not a great chance of any real change coming from it.

Does boss-napping have a greater effect or purpose I've overlooked? To me it seems the same as damaging that fence, it will be repaired tomorrow. Even if you were to kill the boss someone would simply replace them. It doesn't seem like an act that damages the system. I'm sure its got some merit (besides catharsis), I've just missed it somewhere.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bossnapping
Workers actually support bossnappings because their everyday experiences. Workers don't like immigrants taking their jobs.

While I agree that syndicalist and wild cat tactics have their limitations, their usage is crucial if you want the proletariat to experience in advance its power a revolution can only fully develop.

It's not just catharsis. Production stops. The forces are enumerated, made clear. You won't have a general strike without first having isolated strikes. You won't have a revolution without a general strike.

I don't mean to bash on syndicalism as a whole, i was merely pointing out that specific tactic seemed flawed to me.

You are correct that even if after it ends things resume, it does shake up the production process more than i thought during the bossnapping. I'm not sure it would help encourage a strike but maybe I'm just bad at revolutionary tactics. Practice makes perfect though.

Bossnappings are certainly a good way of showing what is to come (to both sides).

btw, a good movie about bossnapping: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tout_Va_Bien

makes sense to me

Surprisingly decent thread.

The literal commodification of the human body does not entail that the person selling themselves, or being sold, is proletarian.

If the majority of productive work was done by prostitutes there wouldn't be any need for this argument, but prostitution is not how society's productive work is done. It is a merchandizing arrangement, but that doesn't quite encapsulate it since no productive labor was done on the body being sold. You were born with it, grew up with it, and now sell it. Thinking otherwise might lead to the depressing conclusion that, all along, OP's parents were raising a whore – they fully intended for her to be in this line of work, and that's how society envisions the role of women's productive work. Fortunately, that is not the case.

The prostitute, in all eras, from the time of slavery, to the peasantry, to the proletariat, has stood outside productive work and thus outside normal social relations of production. The prostitute takes the proletarian's wage and the bourgeois' appropriated wealth in exchange for time with their body, it's all the same to them. From the high courtesan to the gutter prostitute, highly educated or pitifully ignorant, it's the same arrangement, hence prostitutes are lumpenproles.

On a different note, a little while ago Sabot set up a reading group. One of the books was Wolff and Resnik's Contending Economic Theories. I had it bookmarked, still, since I gave up on it 3 months ago. This thread has inspired me to pick it back up.

OP: if you're still here, read this book. It's a Marxian not a Marxist account, which means it differs from Marx's classic account, but it is also much more up to date, and quite concise considering the territory covered. It's require reading imo, which is why I have to finish it.

web.kamihq.com/web/viewer.html?source=sharedfile&document_identifier=0B643jr5GO0mFa3lEdl9KaEF3a2s

So we are all doomed and have to be third worldists then? Your description of the prostitute encompasses each and every cleaner, doctor, gardener or anyone who serves to make someone's life simpler in exchance for money. If these people are supposedly enemies of the revolution as engels seemed to think, aren't we fucked in any first world country?

It would seem that I need an account to read this. Replying because it's one of the first decent replies in the thread in some time.

I'll see if I can find it outside of that site, but can you give me a brief rundown on what it covers?

I'd say that I'm like Tim Minchin in "Storm"; if you provide me with an argument that I cannot refute that isn't based on nonsensical moralist evaluations that are drawn from notions of sexual shame and Original Sin, I will spin on a fucking dime once the shock has worn off. But so far nothing convinces me that I am, in fact, lumpenized, nor am I persuaded that Socialists/Marxists are not in fact idle elitists playing at the idea of revolutionary while hiding behind a wall of Jargon as meaningless as "Blue ocean business strategies dependent upon synergy" the way that businessfags hide out behind it.

That all stated, it's been real Holla Forums. I can honestly say that you're a cut above halfchan and a step above most.

All proletariat commodify their body and soul, its why capitalism sucks. Labour comes from the use of those things.

no it doesn't

>prostitution is not how society's productive work is done. It is a merchandizing arrangement

Oh, and full disclosure on my background: my parents are refugees from Lebanon. I'm studying engineering with an interest in going into pure mathematics, but I realize that's hard on employment prospects. The concept of a solid whose volume is finite but which has an infinite surface area is fucking fascinating to me, and so I have to admit that solids formed from infinite integrals get me fucking wet as hell.

There is no scholarship for Lebanese refugees because we are considered Caucasian, and my barely English speaking, pseudo-literate household was not an easy one to learn in growing up even though I loved school. I have only the choices between going into massive debt or selling my pussy if I want to go to college, which is an easy fucking choice because I don't mind being humped by 50+ year old businessmen in strange hotel rooms if it means I can learn for its own sake.

Thanks to those of you who understand that classist and elitist judgments are irrelevant, and that fear of sexuality is a poison. For the rest of you I hope that one day you find yourselves in a place that gives you some perspective on your current frame of mind.

Acknowleging the Marxist elitism towards certain kinds of people who are excluded from the normal economic sphere, is there any specific reason you're not interested in Anarchism?

you look beautiful btw, if you don't mind me saying

I would only make 1/2 to 1/3 of what I make if I weren't beautiful.

Anarchism is a lovely philosophy, but unfortunately humans in groups larger than 100 or so don't behave in a way that allows it to work.

Also I meant as a reply to , don't know how I misquoted.

Anarchism is mostly based on federations of direct democracies.
Athens, a direct democracy had 10k direct voters and lasted for 5 centuries.
I believe perhaps that you might conflate anarchism (the abolition of rulers) with anomie (the abolition of organization itself)

...

Athens was also a slave owning society in which the idle bourgeois were the only voters.

Please, explain to me how some of these responses are neither elitist nor fearful of sexuality.

Point to them.

Indeed, in this you are right.
The citizens were far from idle though, most of them being craftsmen or intellectuals.

There's nothing to say, in my mind at least, that the same thing cannot be accomplished without slaves, especially today when we have technology to do a lot of work for us and when we have information technology to make us able to intantly vote on everything without even necessarily being present.

What do you think socially necessary labor is? Our needs and requirements to function in the productive process go beyond just eating and work done to fulfill those needs and desires more easily enables greater function in the productive process. To label the sale of one's bodily functions as merchandising would also include all physical laborers, who are quite literally selling their body as well. How do you come up with this distinction that when its a prostitute it suddenly isn't the same thing?

Childcare, sex, taking care of the ill, these acts are necessary for society to function and being paid for them does not put you "outside" the economic classes any more than a self employed person is "outside the economic classes" they are still entirely subject to competition and exploitation. If any of what you said makes sense we could all just start co-ops and have socialism tomorrow alongside capitalism.

How is it you recognize original sin is bullshit but not "muh human nature"? How humans behave varies by their material circumstances, anarchist societies have existed before and even without acknowledging that fact every society produces a different set of "human behaviors" than the others, there is no reason to believe our behavior is so limited.

Most successful anarchist societies were what anarcho-primitivists wish to return to. Surplus labor and agrarian structure, along with even the most rudimentary of democratic processes, however, eventually evolve into kingdoms and modern states. To persuade me of anarchy's validity would require a good bit more in terms of argument.

Regarding automation, we must essentially be in a post-scarcity society for that to work.

How is sex necessary for society to function? (Are you confusing it with sexual reproduction? You must realize prostitutes try avoiding pregnancy.) What's "productive" about sex?

You must surely jest when comparing prostitutes to physical laborers (or office workers, or nurses, or teachers in kindergarten).

The problem with that "post-scarcity" thing is that there is no real such thing as absolute "post-scarcity". An individual commodity can lose most of its scarcity but that doesn't mean everything can lose all of it.

We already have the technologies and production to manage "post-scarcity" food, housing, medicine and many other things, the fact we cant have infinite computers or cars isn't anywhere near as important. Altering our distribution methods could indeed to "post-scarcity" for many things, where everyone could be guaranteed a certain minimum of them to meet their needs.

You realize we are on an imageboard, right? Show me one user that's "afraid of sexuality". (wtf that even supposed to mean?) All I see are horny teens.

It is necessary in exactly the same way friendship is necessary, to satisfy social needs. Both as a result of alienation and of biological urges it is necessary for most people to have sex for their mental health. I am not suggesting a prostitute is harder working or more rewarding than a doctor, i am saying that they are in the same category of work as any self-employed service worker or anyone who provides the traditional types of unpaid but necessary labor, such as friendship, parenting, care for the sick, cooking, cleaning, the production of art and so on so forth. In all of those cases there exists a worker who performs the same task for a wage or self-employs for something that ends up resembling a wage anyway. Are all of these people counter-revolutionary elements that we must keep at an arm bands length?

Here

That's because her work is outside the productive chain of commodities and legal services you stupid ancom.

God you people are dumb,as the previous poster explained it to you in simple language, a prostitute sells her labor directly to her client, she/he is in effect "cheating" the system, and because his/her services exist outside the production of Capital they can also not be exploited by it (unless of course by other lumpens) , they are therefore a parasite class on the labor producing working class, in as much as they sell their services to them. They are a force of lawlessness in a system the legal framework of the bourgeoisie, but they crucially they have no interest in overthrowing it as they are not exploited by it, and as a result can even have more vested interest in preserving it. (such as the mafia)

Gee, those capitalists who make trillions from the entertainment industry sure are stupid… unlike you ;)

...

This post is a great example of someone who is afraid of sexuality and thinks it dangerous and/or lacking in worth, believing that sex is completely lacking in value outside of producing children and acting like the comparison of sex to other labor is insulting

Oh yes, I am the egoist tripfag known as "OP" tripping in my own thread after someone deliberately impersonated me and broke the unspoken truce needed for us all to converse as "anonymous". Fear me. Rawr = F

That is if you still have private (as opposed to personal) property and you have no organization.
Of course petty-kingdoms could arise in a world without no organization at all, but this is not what anarchists want.
They want to be organized in federations of direct democracies with instantly recallable representatives.

You don't need either boss nor ruler to have a society.
You need to have proper face-to-face democracy.

Co-ops and self-employed people also do these things though, as do all people in the service industry. All self-employed people everywhere directly sell their labor to their clients, they are still forced to compete both with each other and with the traditional workforce, which is where their exploitation comes about. I would be much more comfortable accepting your answer if you had been up front about believing all self-employed people and co-ops to be lumpen.

Oh and uh, tankies smell or something, since we are supposed to chuck insults at vague ideologies the other might belong to.

Shit the "as do all people in the service industry" was a part i was supposed to edit out. It doesn't make any sense in the final version of the post, please ignore it.

Not a tankie, but it must be nice to hodgepodge your opponent to "le ebil stalinists"

Self employed people are still exploited by capital as they need to sell their labor (legally again) to the middle man that distributes their goods products. A self employed entrepreneur still has to pay rent, ad use other services to function (a kiosk selling newspapers for example, has to pay rent and depend on the newspaper company, the one who delivers them etc.), or is himself the middle-man that employs several people to work for him, in which case he is part of the petit-bourgeoisie and not a lumpen or worker.

Friendships aren't necessary for societies to function, neither is sexuality for sanity. Both are leisure activities, and neither productive work.

(Look at monk and hermit cultures. Perfectly functioning groups without sex or even speaking. I realize it's completely unacceptable by normie standards and I'm not saying that it's a positive lifestyle.)

*sniff*

Is this the current PC word for prostitutes?

not necessary, not labor, and it wouldn't be friendship if it was paid
necessary, sometimes paid
necessary, almost always paid
necessary, paid and unpaid
mostly necessary, paid and unpaid
unnecessary (tho very important)
unnecessary (tho very important)

It was said many times ITT that just by being in a certain class it doesn't necessitate that you are counter-rev, each time it was ignored.

I guess this is your problem with this post

How is commodifying the most intimate human act not damaging to both sides involved (prostitute, client)? How is subordinating yourself to your urges not degrading in itself? Or are you going to tell me that it is liberating to have sex outside of love?

Woah, I come back and it's gotten interesting.

You don't, you can choose to skip it down the bottom where is asks you to sign in, and it'll let you in fine with a temporary account. You can even annotate provided you don't care it'll be different every time you log back in.

The answer has been given several times in the thread. You can deny it all you like, but it's not about your personal identity it's about how you make a living. On an anecdotal note, I work for a living. I'm not idle, I exchange my time for a wage, and so does everyone else I know.

You had no choices at all – no prospects of a life without debt or prostitution, and you were denied that because of capitalism. So instead of exchanging your time for a wage like a proletarian you exchange your body for a price as a lumpenprole, in order to gain an education. I'm not making a moral judgement here, I really don't care. If you have to do it, so be it. But that makes your class position different to a prole.

Yes, they are necessary, hence why people do them. The difference is whether it is productive work whose surplus is then appropriated by an exploitative class.

Take the gardener example. If you ask someone you know to work your garden with you for $20 an hour this weekend, that person is selling unproductive labor to you. That person produces no commodity since he is not your employee. On the other hand, if someone exchanges their time to a gardening company for a wage they are performing productive work and, indeed, the business is profiting off of their labor. That's the difference. You do not become a bourgeois by paying a portion of your wage to a friend for a weekend; you become bourgeois by running a business which sells gardening as a service.

So bringing it back to prostitution, a woman selling her body for a fixed price ($300) to clients for however long is engaged in unproductive labor. If prostitution were legal, and there were licensed brothels where the Madame employs sex workers to exchange their bodies as a service for a wage, then we're talking exploitation because they're producing a service. Consequently, the OP is not a proletarian since she is not being exploited by the bourgeoisie – she is selling her body in order to pay for college tuition.

Why are they forced to compete? The market. So you're suggesting that market forces themselves are exploitative. Marx would agree with that IIRC, but Wolff and Resnik would not. That's another issue I'm not too good at, yet, so I'll leave someone else to answer that.

I probably won't be able to hang around for too much longer, I have things to do (and I have to work later) but I'll reply for as long as I can.

Entertainment is just another word for control, tbh.

I was clearly trying to figure out his mode of thinking, hence the parenthesis.
This is exactly not conservative.

If you work 8-12-14-16 hours a day, do something that is actually productive, it is insulting.

Until timestamp you are nobody by chan standards.

timestamp, tbh.
You could be a Holla Forumsyp taking us for a ruse-cruise.

we need more based posters like you, please stay on leftypol and educate the ancoms.

The idea that labor only becomes productive when managed and the surplus is taken directly is not one i am familiar with, to me it makes it sound like the goal of socialism is to turn everyone into lumpenproles.

If we aren't talking about Marx why use the term lumpen at all? I took it for a given that everyone here except market socialists and ancaps believed market forces are exploitative. Besides the person getting paid when directly working for the client is having their surplus simply not provided them to begin with. The value of their service to the client must be greater than what the client pays them or the client wouldn't pay.

There were actually a lot of posts that literally stated in clear terms that associating with lumpen was counter-revolutionary, including one who directly quoted engels on the subject.

Monks do not live within the bounds of our capitalist society, their conditions are not the same and they still indeed do need to fulfill the same needs and desires that sex does. I have said before that prostitution is not the only answer to these mental health problems and it is not necessarily the best one, but that doesn't change what it exists for and its results.

It came across that you needed to ask not to find insight into me, but because you could not see any value in sex yourself. It seems i misunderstood you.

The statement is deeply conservative on the subject of sexuality, it suggests you cannot see the value of sexual pleasure at all whilst acknowledging the value of sexual reproduction as obvious.

There are prostitutes who do work many hours a day and there are workers who do not. Nearly all tasks are done to reduce stress and produce pleasure in some form, a coal miner is working to produce electricity to power various gadgets that make life easier, supposedly less stressful and more pleasurable, a cleaner changes a place aesthetically so that others do not have to, transferring the stress of the task to themselves and creating the same "pleasure" of operating in a clean and safe environment.

I'm actually an antinatalist, and I do see the value importance of sexual pleasure. It's you who deals with sex [between lovers, casual, prostituted] as essentially equal.

How can you say it is important if unnecessary? Sex, art, social relationships, mental healthcare and so on so forth are all about reducing the effects of stress so that one can function in a healthy matter. Without these things we are forced to rely on a smaller and smaller pile of tools for stress management until there are none left strong enough to deal with the pressures of capitalist alienation. There is nothing degrading about our urges unless we choose to degrade ourselves, it is no more degrading to seek pleasure than it is to seek food.

Sex has nothing to do with love, it is not liberating to have sex outside of love, it is merely restrictive to limit sex to an act of love. The most intimate human act is not sex, it would be love itself, to give yourself over to another and to put their needs ahead of your own requires immense trust and nothing could be more intimate, it is in fact insulting to love to suggest any physical action could come close in intimacy.

On the subject of antinatalism i certainly believe it is the correct course, i just am not sure how one can make the world embrace it and if it is worthwhile to do it yourself when you cannot. Can the existence of a new child potentially lead to the nonexistence of a greater number? Reducing suffering is complicated and shit.

I'm not sure where you are going with the second part. Yes, i view the sexual aspect of all three of those as equal. What makes those relationships distinct is not the sexual pleasure, it is the other pleasures and relationships surrounding them. Forgive me but i just don't get where you are going with that, is there something you are trying to imply? I do deal with sex as essentially equal, but what does that mean to you? What are you trying to say?

Civilization is unnecessary for our survival, some aspects of it are highly dubious, but as a civilized being what can one really say? The pleasures civilization takes away (say, by outlawing rape, prostitution, incest, etc.) gives back on another level (art, possibility for love, fidelity). It's a very fragile system.

pic related

Ooh, that's a hard one. Would I give up us having art if it immediately resulted in insurrections? Shit, I'm tempted. You see? You bring out the barbarian in me.

You are missing the point. Nothing is degrading in urges themselves. We have them for a reason. We have ways of channelling them tho, in our potty-trained ways. What is degrading, as I said, is subordinating yourself to them. It is completely retrograde.

For the majority, yes. But then again, capitalist culture and doxa isn't our best guide, now is it?

I agree.

I gain too with this restrictive choice. It gives lovemaking meaning. Fidelity is a fucking awesome thing, and giving intimacy to only those with whom you fell in love with deepens the experience, and your self-worth, btw. I chose this because my experiences with one night stands: I always felt being reduced to a tool, being robbed of something.

Sex, while in love, tbh.

And I'm the puritan! Also, who is this "love" you are talking about?

You sound like a burnt out whore, to be perfectly honest with you my dear anonymous friend with the distinct posting style in this peculiar thread on this peculiar day.

How often do you have sex (not just with costumers)? Do you masturbate as well?

Yes, except debt, wage labor, not studying, or committing suicide. Apart from these choices, she really had no choices at all. A good deal of good people would chose any of those four (non-)choices over prostitution.

I know it is supposedly a thread about class, but OP is slimy, and I don't like us playing her transparent games.

...

It's called commodification, one of the basics of Marxist/Marxian theory.

I don't have time to address this right now, but I'll try and answer later.

Relying on them to support your revolution will bite you in the ass, is what he was saying.

I'm trying to convince her, but you're probably right; I'm wasting my time.

I'll be back after work.

Right, back again.

The OP sells her body in exchange for a monetary return. There is no labor time being offered up – she is offering her literal body with a set use-time in exchange for money. She isn't working for the client, in that sense. Instead, as I argued earlier, she is providing a merchandizing arrangement with herself as the product – a literal commodification of the self. Proletarians commodifty their labor-power – their ability to work – in order to earn a wage. Contrarily, the OP commodified her body for it to be literally used in order to be paid a fee. So yes, there is no surplus appropriated in this arrangement, and the value of being allowed to use her body is worth the price paid by the client, otherwise he would not pay.

Concerning the self-employed this was a good answer

Individual contractors who hire themselves out to companies or corporations are exchanging their labor for a wage, and if they work with individual clients as self-employed they are still providing their labor for a wage (typically it is still charged by the hour), only in the latter case there is no direct exploitation by the bourgeoisie. Arguably there is indirect exploitation through market forces – being forced to compete with workers who provide the same service or good through a company, for example, but that, again, is something I'm not strong on atm. Importantly, the individual contractor is not a prostitute – they are selling a service or a good, not their literal selves, and are thus not a lumpenprole.

I'll probably leave it here for the day. A good conversation imo.

kek

So the cuck meme is true?

Didn't you make this thread a couple months ago? You're Canadian, right?

You aren't ready for the revolution.

Have you ever considered getting a sugar daddy?

What a time to be alive.

see

thinking someone "belongs" to you is fucked up.

I fucked a bunch of whores in commie china. Does that make me bourgeois?

But everything belongs to me, my property.

Raising another man's child is fucked up. I'm not saying keep her chained to a radiator, but don't dote someone who regularly sleeps with other guys. Letting your gf/wife cheat on you is a sign of low IQ and testosterone.

Date*

I don't have a cuckhold fetish. I was responding to you calling me a cuck for finding it cool that she is a prostitute. In fact I am an anti-natalist. What I was trying to convey is that I don't want to have a restrictive relationship. People should be free to fuck who they please. The term relationship should not even exist.

And I'm saying that that in the grand scheme of things that hedonism like that is destructive. You can't raise healthy children in a situation like that.

What if you dont want to be fucked by the person who wants to fuck you? Do you just take one for the team?

??? then dont fuck them. wtf lol.

also what part of anti-natalism do you not get? there is no intent to raise children.

If I want to fuck Taylor Swift, then I should be able to, no?

I mean yeah, but you're intentionally misunderstanding me. There shouldn't be some sort of norm preventing you and her from fucking if you both want to, but there is.

If taylor wants to fuck me, and I want to fuck taylor, then what exactly is the norm that prevents us from fucking?

erectile dysfunction

Social laders will never allow her to meet you or you to know if you realy want to fuck her, or the idea of her capitalism has created in your brains.

If I wanted to fuck taylor and she wanted to fuck me, then assumingly we would be on the same or similar social tier. Is there any other `norm` that would prevent us from getting shiggy wiggy?

I'm glad that someone is actually properly covering the commodification of productive social work. The big misunderstanding a lot of leftists have is believing the proletariat is only those people who sell their labor to product physical commodities. In a manufacturing economy this is the bulk of production but there is and always has been labor that produces something socially valued that is not physical. Babysitting, singing, blowjobs etc. None of these produce a physical commodity but they are socially valued and so they can be commodified. A price can be set and an exchange made. Prostitution is a commodification of an activity ( sex ) that used to be and still is largely done for free as a spontaneous expression of human sexuality. The same way that much production was once done as a spontaneous expression of human creativity. In both cases capitalism and commodification leads to alienation of labor, what was once a joyful and voluntary activity now only exists in the framework of a coercive market exchange.

If OP is still around this is why I would say being a whore is a problem from a leftist perspective. By commodifying an important aspect of themselves they are alienated and lose that part of themselves to the market. I suspect many of the women who become whores voluntarily were already alienated in some way about their sexuality and so this does not seem like a big loss to them. But it is a loss. Prostitution is more profitable than most forms of selling your labor and yet the vast majority of women choose to sell their productive time rather than their bodies. This tells us that we as people value keeping our sexuality out of the market far more than our other socially-productive impulses.

Delete this whore thread

your mom's a whore thread

triggered

Get off my board, you cretin.

this is why you commies need a safe space

haha, no

Hi guys, I'm ancom, and I think that the organ market is a pretty cool thing!

Mafia is purest for of bourgie
Hobos are victims of capitalism
Whores re prols.

Any other category?

Would you be having sex with strangers as a way to serve society, were there no consumer benefits in place?

*Consumer as in, you being able to consume more and better products.

also, Checkad.

are you retarded?

How does having sex with strangers serve society? Also
absolutely disgusting marxists.org/reference/archive/wilde-oscar/soul-man/

Prostitution is the act of selling your body for money. Under socialism there are no "consumer benefits" and no money, so there's no possibility for prostitution as such.

If X wants to have sex, but has noone to have sex with and Y wants to provide sex to X, is that not a social service?

This is why I ask our anwhore about it. It might be what one likes to do. If you decide that you prefere to have sex with strangers, as part of your … mandatory labor or whatever you wanna call it, than, for example, teaching or helping with the robots, is one not free to do it? Is this not a social service?

One might enjoy being praise for one's skill in sex like others are praise for being good doctors.

Also, have some Kapital on this.

That's what I was saying before. I sell my body just the same as this woman does since I work in labor. Unless you have a spooky view as to what sex is, idk why you'd believe her and I selling our bodies is any different

Yes, well, we both sell our labor power.
The point is, would you keep doing this, if it didn't give you access to better consumer products?
Is this what you enjoy doing.. FOR SOCIETY?

I for one wouldn't do my current job, if I had a choise. and am not selling sex. noone would buy it from me anyway

No, of course I wouldn't work labor if I did not have to. How is that all relevant ?

… again, say everyone has to do 2 hours of labor per week. Anything you like. And then you can do any work you want. You get equal access to consumer products regardless of your work.

Would what you do now be your labor of choise?

I'd choose to help coach the Chicago bulls if I could. Obviously that's a crazy dream for someone like me lol

Aaah!
See?

So IT IS A L I E N A T I O N!

if you said yes, I'd say "damn you for being happy. I'm sure there are people outthere who would prefer to do that, even without capitalism

...

But it's not quite the same(assuming you're OP and taking about prostitution). You aren't partaking in production in the same way the prole is, thus are a different class.

Being a lumpen doesn't make you a bad person(or inheritly counter-revolutionary), it simply means your relationship to production is not the same as a wage laborer. Perhaps in some cases a lumpen would benefit more from capitalism, like mafia, but I don't see girls forced into prostitution to feed their families or to avoid crippling debt to be in that category.

You disgust me.

THAT FUCKING "lumpen = unemployed" meme….

LUMPEN IS LACK OF CLASS CON!

anyway, prostitutes are part of the services industry. Tertiary sector of the economy. Like it or not.

Same as you don't NEED a waiter, you don't NEED a prostitute. We, who work in the services industry do not produce. Our labor value is our skills and time. We are our product. This is how capitalism objectifies humans. This is the worst kind of A L I E N A T I O N. And most of the "first" world is working on services.

WE ARE ALL WHORES!

I don't know how you got that at all from what I wrote. The (perpetually)unemployed would be lumpen because they are outside of production. A prostitute is in a similar situation, she does not take part of production of a service in the same way a prole does. She does not sell her expertise or knowledge, she sells access to herself. A waiter does not do this, a maintenance guy does not do this, and unless you have a very autistic conception of medicine a doctor does not do this. Therefore she is not of the same relation to production as the proletariat and as such is lumpen.

This is not to say prostitutes, or the lumpen as a whole, are de facto class enemies. It is entirely possible for them to be class conscious in the sense that the majority of them are suffering because of capitalism. And from there very plausible to contribute to the revolution, just hopefully in ways that doesn't commodify sex.

You are all forgetting the fundamentals here.
There are no girls on the internet.
Picture very related.

This thread is full of orbiters.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpenproletariat

Lumpen Prols ARE enemies, cause they are your average Trump voter.

Well then we appear idiots!
t. Zizek

Yes she does. Like a waiter is not a machine that brings you food to the table, so a whore is not a hole to fill. They both offer a SERVICE.

selling labor power =/= selling your body
(as was discussed already many times)

We are discussing theory, faggot.
Even if with a dose of LARP.

Right now, at work, I sell my presence. I do nothing. I shitpost on Holla Forums. I AM selling my body.

SERVICES INDUSTRY!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertiary_sector_of_the_economy

Kill yourself pseudoleftist

It seems like a meaningless distinction tbh. Sexing a person is labor for a prostitute.

Good post, but you sit on the fence on whether a prostitute is a proletarian or a lumpenprole. From the content of your post you're leaning towards the former – sex as an activity which has been commodified as much as labor. But the reason why I believe it is the latter is the simple reason, as discussed earlier, that labor as an activity is how the world's productive work is done. Other activities, like sex, may have been commodified as a result of capitalist alienation, but they do not send people to factories or onto the stop floor to have sex in order to produce goods or services. What a world that would be. Importantly to this discussion, the OP in question conducts her "transactions" on her terms with her clients, not with a boss/pimp/Madame taking a cut. There is no appropriation of a surplus.

See above.

It's a pretty important distinction. Sex is not labor, it is an activity which has been commodified. A helpful leftcom has posted what Marx had to say in another thread, but I'll repost it here

>Productive labour is here defined from the standpoint of capitalist production, and Adam Smith here got to the very heart of the matter, hit the nail on the head…he defines productive labour as labour which is directly exchanged with capital; that is, he defines it by the exchange through which the conditions of production of labour, and value in general, whether money or commodity, are first transformed into capital (and labour into wage-labour in its scientific meaning).

>This also establishes absolutely what unproductive labour is. It is labour which is not exchanged with capital, but directly with revenue, that is, with wages or profit (including of course the various categories of those who share as co-partners in the capitalist’s profit, such as interest and rent).

>An actor, for example, or even a clown, according to this definition, is a productive labourer if he works in the service of a capitalist (an entrepreneur) to whom he returns more labour than he receives from him in the form of wages; while a jobbing tailor who comes to the capitalist’s house and patches his trousers for him, producing a mere use-value for him, is an unproductive labourer. The former’s labour is exchanged with capital, the latter’s with revenue. The former’s labour produces a surplus-value; in the latter’s, revenue is consumed.
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1863/theories-surplus-value/ch04.htm

So this supports what I was arguing earlier, going off of Wolff and Resnik. Prostitutes are providing a use-value which is exchanged for revenue (a fee). The laborer exchanges his time for a wage, i.e. with capital. Seems pretty clear-cut imo.

Yes, but, we're moving to an era where the prols are paied with fees, and the bourgies get part of the prols fees.

See Uber even.

Neoliberalism is destroying even the selling of labor power. Now it's only selling of time, for a fee.

Productive labor is becoming more and more a thing of the past. Automation is making it.

And if we do not evolve, how are we to make the uber driver class con? The plumber that is under the contract of a mega-franchise and is payed per sink fixing, then gives 1% or something to the franchise.

The proletariat is getting franchised!

It's like in the Prez comic… Where the taco-shirt to get food.

We need Kapital 2.0.

Yeah, drivers keep 80% of the fees, plus they get paid a rate for simply being online and available to drive, and they get surge fares during rushes. Uber's successful by sheer volume of fares as well as raising capital. IIRC it's valued at some ridiculous figure like USD50 billion despite only having a revenue stream of USD2.1 billion.

If you look at new digital services like Uber, yes, to a degree, but I doubt they constitute the majority of productive work done in the economy. Even then, you're not just selling your availability, you're still selling your ability to work, doing something – even if it is just driving, and are thus providing a productive service, etc.

Applies to the proletariat more broadly, and still a difficult question the left is trying to answer for this "new" era. Uber drivers in general only consider it a temp job, so it's likely impossible for most of them as it's a stepping stone to "greater things", i.e. being exploited full time somewhere else.

True, but I don't think we'll see the death of traditional employment. It's too useful. Concerning Uber, most drivers don't hang around for any more than a few months. Concerning Amazon, they burn through people at a similar rate. This neoliberal style of capitalism is very high intensity when it comes to the burn-out of labor. Banking is another area where employees know that every day could be their last. That isn't applicable across the entire economy though.

I couldn't agree more. Given 20 years I could probably handle everything but the math.

I disagree, I would say prostitutes are proletarian 100% Labor is labor the only difference between prostitutes, singers and other producers of socially valued but non-physical goods and factory workers is the structures that exist to appropriate surplus for the capitalist class. Prostitutes do not require physical tools, raw materials etc to produce something socially valued, they require only their bodies. The capitalist class claims the product of the workers through property rights over the tools and materials they need to do their work, the 'capital'. They can only do this to prostitutes when a legal framework exists to claim property rights over their bodies too. Under slave societies this absolutely happened, prostitutes were ownable commodities and all the value of their work went to their owners. This is also what happens with pimps and human trafficers but using violence and intimidation to enforce ownership rather than the law.

There is an interesting point that I think should be made here. The capitalists hold power over the working class only to the extent they can control through force the things they require to engage in socially productive work. Types of labor that are more difficult to control centrally, prostitution, singing, computer programming etc, have an easier time freeing themselves from capitalist theft.

Also my understanding of the lumenproletariot was it was meant to refer to the parts of the lower class that made a living through various sorts of petty theft and protection money. Small scale bourgeoisie extorting other poor. So pimps would count as lumpenproletariot but prostitutes would not.

if you're an escort you'd prove it somehow

show tits

she did, read the thread faggot

not gonna make it breh, sorry

Ebin

Questions?

If u say that she sells "stress relief" → so you aren't buying hamburgers but "hunger-relief"?
ridiculous

So, as I understand it, we still need a few more years till the economical downfall is stabilized, automation takes over most of the production lines and even 3rd world sweatshop are not cost effective enough, compared to automation.

Then, we will have the final (?) state of capitalism, where the worker is but a mere tool, rented of a day or a month to do whatever the machines cannot yet do, until we reach a stage where workers are only luxuries for the rich that want to have the illusion of human contact.

And this is when the workers have become escorts. :^)

If it was only the body, you'd prefer a robot or something, and there would only be one kind. Instead they sell companionship, skill in sex, pleasure, escapism…

You aren't even buying hunger-relief. You buy the idea of the burger. The social "status". The speed. The taste.
If it was only "hunger-relief" you wouldn't be eating burgers.
Also, again, burgers are for those that afford the lower tier and the higher tier eat at expensive restaurants. Again, not for hunger relief, but for social status and so on.
So, she sells social interaction, the ilusion of dominance and power … you know.. it's like buying a burger instead of going through the prosses of buying the matterials and cooking the food.

A SERVICE!

And yes, it is a comodification of the body, and this is why it's the highest form of A L I E N A T I O N

you are the cancer of leftypol

EVERYONE ITT ESPECIALLY OP NEEDS TO READ THIS BOOK

From the book:

Jesus wept, you're all pathetic.

ok.
I'll keep using my flag as usual.

stopped right there.

Read the second paragraph asshole

Well spooked lads

Did you even read the thread? Most of the discussion is theory

...

idiot

explain

OP if you're still here I came across this: huffingtonpost.com/mark-crispin-miller/nyu-tuition-prostitution_b_8112424.html Is this somewhat similar to the situation you find yourself in, albeit not at as expensive school as NYU or having previous financial support?

You might also find this: marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-1/red-papers-2/franklin.htm fairly interesting. Not a Marxist myself, but it's fairly good.

There's 2 nudes and most of the discussion has been over whether prostitutes count as lumpen or proletariat. And if it is a rusecruise I'd rather talk about theory and how to possibly mobilize and recruit lumpens than explain to a Holla Forumscuck how he's retarded for believing whatever.

Shit from your linked wiki
>The Marxist Internet Archive writes that "[lumpenproletariat] identifies the class of outcast, degenerated and submerged elements that make up a section of the population of industrial centers" which include "beggars, prostitutes, gangsters, racketeers, swindlers, petty criminals, tramps, chronic unemployed or unemployables, persons who have been cast out by industry, and all sorts of declassed, degraded or degenerated elements."
>Marx's definition has influenced contemporary sociologists, who are concerned with many of the marginalized elements of society characterized by Marx under this label. Marxian and even some non-Marxist sociologists now use the term to refer to those they see as the "victims" of modern society, who exist outside the wage-labor system, such as beggars, or people who make their living through disreputable means: prostitutes and pimps, swindlers, carnies, drug dealers, bootleggers, and bookmakers, but depend on the formal economy for their day-to-day existence.

Prostitutes are lumpen because they exist outside of the wage labor system, there is no surplus to be extracted and no MoP involved in the service provided by the prostitute. This is not some subjective thing, it's an objective reality of one's relation to the MoP.

Nigga, being reactionary retard doesn't change your relationship to the MoP. The average Trump Supporter is a classcuck, not a lumpen.

Furthermore I'd argue that the lumpen are not inherently enemies. They could be, particularly in the case of drug cartel leadership or mafia(who function as black market bourgs) or those in a position to lead very lavish lifestyles(petit-bourgs), but I do not think petty thieves or low-level dealers or most prostitutes are in that situation. AEOed properly, these downtrodden could become revolutionary as they suffer from the capitalist system as surely as the wage worker does.

We're on a vietnamese sketching board, we appear idiots and autists no matter how we use terms.

So, in modern society IMO, prostitutes have more revolutionary potential than factory workers that support Trump and believe in the 'Murican dream.

And this is why I dissagree with the notion of "lumpen are the unemployied".

If so, then what is the reserve army of labor?

Shall we then categorize mafia cartels, whores, beggars and unemployied (wether out of choise or because capitalism) as "lumpen"?

Or are lumpen the reactionaries that do not want and shall never wish to revolt or have a revolution going, even if they themselves are part of the proletariat?

It depends on the case. I would say a Trump supporter who knows that something is wrong with the economic system but doesn't have the knowledge to identify what it is has quite a bit of potential, albeit potential that will not likely be able to be tapped into. Comparatively a high class prostitute who lives a lavish lifestyle would likely have very little revolutionary potential because socialism would rob them of that lifestyle.

If we're talking about who would be in general easier to recruit, then I would agree. The people who have to whore themselves out just to pay for education or to live are certainly in a position that would lend them better to radicalization than a classcuck. However I'd say a Trump presidency could change this, in that disillusionment with the burgerdream could be leave them open to radicalization.

Nigga, that ain't what I said. The perpetually unemployed are only a group that is lumpen and they are lumpen because they do not have the same relationship to MoP that a prole does. They do not participate in production, therefore we can not categorize them as Bourgeoisie or Proletariat. The same applies to whores and thieves and whatever. I am not trying to say that they're bad, merely that they have a different relationship to the MoP than a wage laborer.

Temporarily out of work/underemployed proles and immigrants. Both have the potential to become lumpen, but these are mainly what capitalism will tap into to meet a demand for labor.

Yes, with the caveat that unemployed is perpetually unemployed as compared to a prole who lost their job.

No, the lumpen is of a different relation to the MoP than the prole. Class unconscious or classcuck is a far better description of reactionary proles.

I'm reading through some of the old work and I cannot find any quote where Marx himself called prostitutes lumpenproletariat.

Marx's main problem with the lumpenproletariot seems to have been that thieves, gangsters etc. depended on handouts from the bourgeoisie in one form or another to make their living and so were easily bribed to fight or undermine proletarian revolutions. This is less your average trump voter, who is usually a prole, and more your average inner city banger scraping by on welfare and selling coke.

It was probably Engles.

Would this not apply to prostitutes like the OP? Her clientele are primarily "50+ year old businessmen" and she allegedly makes in 8 hour sessions what I make in a month on a $15 an hour wage. If we're going to use the logic that lumpens are counter-revolutionary because they depend on handouts from the bourgeois, surely the situation the OP claims to be in would fall under that.

I don't think that lumpens are inherently class enemies, but if you are going to use the marxist logic on lumpens then you have to conclude prostitutes are lumpen and therefore class enemies.

Or maybe they vote Trump because assholes like you treat them like the enemy.

Let's be honest, must Trump voters would currently support Trump no matter what some faggots have treated them like.

They fear the "reds" more than they hate us.

It's not us treating them like the enemy, it's them being the enemy, out of fear of change.

Kind of off-topic but am i the only one who really doesn't like engels? Pretty much everything he wrote himself sucked (yes, even on the origins of family) and honestly i think we probably got a worse version of marx thanks to engels editing and compiling it all.

No you are not. I'm not even a Marxist but Engles biggest contribution seems to have been funding Marx and cucking Hess for meme material as opposed to any solid theory.

-Due to the welfare state safety net, and the laxing of sexual morals, prostitution has become a less desperate profession since the 1860's.
-I think you underestimate how many prostitutes fall under the druggie category.
-I also think you overestimate the class consciousness of your peers.