I've had a dude literally use "The Means of Reproduction" to justify being a chaser in a convo with me.
MRW: :wtf-am-i-reading:
There was a guy who said that sex workers are definitionally petite-bourgeois because they own "means of production" (their own bodies).
Now, there are some sex workers who technically do own means of production and a small few who are petite bourgeois, but there are two basic problems with their argument from a theoretical standpoint:
Humans and living human bodies are specifically not the means of production. They are the labor input that is put into the means of production in order to produce. This is something Marx's LTV hinges on. The collective term for laborers and the means of production are the "forces of production".
Being bourgeois in any capacity is not primarily defined by ownership, if one is being very technical. It is defined by extracting labor value from others, which is almost always accomplished via ownership. If you're a carpenter who owns your own tools and operates a one-man business, you are not even slightly bourgeois on a local-level analysis (it's more complicated when we factor in where those tools came from).
Of course, there is also the issue of that person's view being ridiculously misogynistic, but anyone who would say that shit publicly is probably past the point of "that's misogynistic" being an effective argument. I just wanted to mention the technical arguments in case someone here encounters this shit in the future.
The user was banned that day, and rightfully so.
Now, there are some sex workers who technically do own means of production
What are the MoP in that case? A brothel?
People who own brothels usually -- at least to my knowledge -- play a managerial role rather than directly engage in "sex work" in any recognizable use of the term. They are basically just a type of manager, salesperson, and, in grim cases, disciplinarian.
What I was thinking of was independent porn stars who hire camera guys, other crew, and maybe editors. You get a lot of these at the top levels of OnlyFans. The MoP there, or so one might stipulate since there is going to be some variance, is likely to include sets, props, stage/filming equipment, and probably also the digital space with a cultivated following that it's uploaded to.
No OnlyFans definitely own that means of production although it's arguably more akin to a feudal economic relationship as without looking into it I'm going to assume OnlyFans takes a cut and will accept correction if that's wrong.
that feudal relationship is basically because OnlyFans (the company) is a more sophisticated than usual pimp in their business model
It is also worth noting that we are here talking about the extreme higher end of sex work and far and away not a representative sample of the level to which the industry as a whole relies on violence to control the worker’s bodies
When I said "digital space" I didn't mean the app, but the channel itself. Of course, you are right that this is still inaccurate, as it's more accurate to describe it like a lordly relation with the company, but the other items remained and I think there needs to be a closer analysis of what the "fan community" is and means to write it off as 100% OnlyFans. I don't have the knowledge to do that analysis.
You are right that this is the extreme high end, but I did note exactly that in my earlier comments. The overall statement I was making was that things like this are the exception and sex workers (prostitutes especially) tend to very clearly proletarian.
that feudal relationship is basically because OnlyFans (the company) is a more sophisticated than usual pimp in their business model
I don’t think a feudal relationship is a particularly relevant comparison. OF functions a lot more like a larger marketplace that rents out stalls for smaller shops on a commission basis.
Basically not much different from itch.io or a paid Google Drive acct.
Yup, exactly. Trying to describe OF as some kind of “digital feudalism” has extremely cringe white knight vibes
There was a guy who said that sex workers are definitionally petite-bourgeois because they own “means of production” (their own bodies).
I feel like at this point, this person has just lost the plot entirely. Modern leftists are so good at jerking ourselves off to trying to define in superfine detail what person is in what class, etc etc
Reading Marx and Engels, it seems like these guys didn't get too caught up in the definitions. In Capital, I really get the impression Marx considers the "working class" to broadly be workers in factories, farms, on the streets, and servants quarters. And then you have a capitalist class and maybe petite bourgeois. That's a lot of people who are left undefined but I really don't think Marx is trying to put every single person into a category.
I mean, if you see the rest of my comment, I explain on a technical level exactly why he's wrong using definitions that (though uncited) are from Marx and Engels
If you own the means of production and are only self-employed, then you’re not petite-bourgeoise though?
Edit: finished reading your comment, love that you addressed it
The user was banned that day, and rightfully so.
Love a good happy ending.
also ignoring that a lot of sex workers are exploited by pimps often very violently
I mention that in my other comment. This is context I didn't mention, but the sicko was talking about porn actresses more so than prostitutes, at least the way I remember the interaction.
this is a very wide generalization and is a line of thinking often used as justification for police and state violence against sex workers.
Exploitation and violence from third parties are certainly an issue, however this also tends to be over-applied or used to conflate sex work and human trafficking as the same thing.
I’d also recommend not using the term “pimp” as it’s a very gendered, racialized and classed term. The term “pimp” does not recognize the range of third party roles, the services they provide nor the relationships they have with sex workers.
I think the concept of artisan labor is more helpful in these cases. Petty bourgeois is overbroad if you use it for both dealership owners and fansly-havers.
“The Means of Reproduction” to justify being a chaser
please tell me that was not on this site.
:visible-disgust:
:jesse-wtf:
I'm guessing these are words of some kind (use “The Means of Reproduction” to justify being a chaser)
In a clothing optional society, I’d probably wear a dress too sometimes. They’re fun.
Hey marx, can I have a sassy degrading fuckboi?
:marx-angry::bonk:
same dude uses their poop as soap or some shit and wonders why he cant get laid
"Free"
The biggest problem is they see women as a product, a commodity only to be used to increase their social status.
I'm a fat smelly gamer incel. Why won't that smoke show give me a blumpkin.
Leftists on lonely men: "ew, smelly incel"
Fascists on lonely men: "it's not your fault, bro"
Damn, I wonder why so many young men are becoming radicalized to the right?
For every incel there are a thousand otherwise normal young men alienated by capitalism. Describing every lonely man as an incel is a great way to push an entire generation of men to the far right.
The one on the meme is clearly not a "normal lonely young man" tho. It's a literal incel.
I feel like the question needs to be asked; exactly how normal are "lonely young men" these days, anyways?
Even so... The main difference in being understood to be the latter over the former does seem to boil down to how much one believes their isolation to be a social problem, rather than the place they simply naturally ought to inhabit.
At least, that's what I see.
No, the main difference is whether you see solely others as the reason of you being lonely or not. People who like to be alone won't ask for a "young beautiful virgin".
Not getting laid is not a social problem. It's not even a problem in the first place.
No, the main difference is whether you see solely others as the reason of you being lonely or not.
How would one go about ascribing their own social isolation to social causes in a way that is legitimate to you? Or is it just that you reject out of hand that there are any illegitimate causes for the social isolation of young men?
People who like to be alone won’t ask for a “young beautiful virgin”.
I mean, I also wouldn't.
Not getting laid is not a social problem. It’s not even a problem in the first place.
I have to say that I think that this point is kind of an irreconcilable disagreement. I think that if a given set of people cannot engage in basic human social activities, then that's both a problem & potentially a social one.
Like most, I think this is primarily a problem rooted in the class system though.
I have to say that I think that this point is kind of an irreconcilable disagreement. I think that if a given set of people cannot engage in basic human social activities, then that’s both a problem & potentially a social one.
I hate to say it, but any kind of solution to the problem of lonely men isn't going to come from the West (or from leftists in the West). I think it's going to come from the comrades in the Global South. I'm curious how China is going to handle its surplus of men (https://jezebel.com/china-and-india-have-a-man-surplus-and-its-as-dire-as-i-1825360810). I seriously doubt they're gonna do what I see most on here and other mostly western leftists do (i.e. respond with ridicule but no tangible solutions, just platitudes of "be yourself").
How would one go about ascribing their own social isolation to social causes in a way that is legitimate to you? Or is it just that you reject out of hand that there are any illegitimate causes for the social isolation of young men?
No? The meme is about people who blame women solely for their own isolation. Period. So if you want to ascribe your social isolation don't do it by asking someone who wants to help to give you a "free beautiful girlfriend". That's all there is to it.
I have to say that I think that this point is kind of an irreconcilable disagreement. I think that if a given set of people cannot engage in basic human social activities, then that’s both a problem & potentially a social one.
I mean yeah, i don't consider sex as a basic social activity for some time and my life has been infinitely better since then so there indeed is a vast difference between us.
So if you want to ascribe your social isolation don’t do it by asking someone who wants to help to give you a “free beautiful girlfriend”. That’s all there is to it.
I mean, that's fair.
I mean yeah, i don’t consider sex as a basic social activity for some time and my life has been infinitely better since then so there indeed is a vast difference between us.
Well, my perspective on this is that when I was much, much younger (about mid-elementary) I very deliberately made the choice to limit my exposure & interactions with other people, on the basis that I felt that since nobody was ever gonna be my friend anyways, it would be less painful not to bother trying. I also applied that rationale to a number of things, from my physical fitness, to eventually my actual schoolwork. Obviously none of that ever made me any less miserable. It, of course, only ever made me more isolated, unhealthy, and unaccomplished; until at 25 I was a nearly 400lb autistic (I mean that medically btw) NEET with no friends, no life, and no future whatsoever.
Now I have made changes to that, I've since lost more than 200lbs, and when my body is physically able (right now I'm recovering from a broken knee) I work a job making car-parts, and lift weights/jog 3-5 days a week; I'm also in the middle of trying to run a TTRPG game online, and such. I have also pursued psychiatric therapy to I think somewhat mixed results; I've actually been medicated most my life & I was actually in classes for students w/ emotional impairments in elementary on account of my diagnosis, my home-life, and my general demeanor causing significant problems in my education. I don't think that it was actually a good environment though as the teachers were often strict to the point of being physically abusive I think; I also haven't been able to maintain my medication or other treatment lately on account of my normal work schedule & other matters making time scarce.
The point I'm getting at here is that I know from experience that I could "choose to believe" that I don't actually need certain things to be happy, or at least content in life. I also know for a fact that for me personally that would actually be a lie, and that I would be significantly more miserable not trying to pursue them, and ideally achieving them, than I would not doing so.
Not getting laid is not a social problem. It’s not even a problem in the first place.
I mean, this is what capitalists/reactionaries/bootlickers say about all sorts of things, like representation in media, realistic beauty standards, healthcare, gainful/meaningful employment, etc.
The reasoning of most on here, if applied to this analogy, is that we're gonna solve the problem of drug addiction through "Tough on Crime" policy.
Yeah this particular issue is one where I see a lot of progressives/leftists suddenly become :jordan-eboy-peterson: and go full personal responsibility mode. Not sure why.
