• 0 Posts
Joined 2Y ago
Cake day: Jul 30, 2020


IMO I think a lot of socialists need to focus on… well coming up with more solutions to the collapse of the soviet union. I’m not an expert on it, but I know enough basic history to know… the soviet union imploded. Fact is a lot of the first world capitalist countries are stuck in the propoganda of “we tried it, it failed”. The reality is like every system and every event in history, they did some good things and some bad things, and a propor system takes the good, refines it, finds the bad parts and cut it out.

At least to my really limited history knowledge, I’m sure a large part of it was the dick waving contest with the US and capitalist countries. Obviously Lysenkoism was an extreme case of horrid stupidity that made the food supply chains 100x worse.

The point is, if we want to sell the world on communism, we can’t just point to things and say “See USSR did this, and it was good”, without making a case for it having done good in the USSR, and not allow it to be assumed to be part of the collapse of the USSR.

Honestly I hate touchscreens so much lol. So many of the computers at my work place have touch screens, and it drives me crazy because, I’m often trying to explain to someone OK click here (then my fingernail grazes the screen and clicks it for them)… crap I wanted you to do that so you’d actually learn.

That and then actually using it. It’s imprecise as hell, and to add to the annoyance, you can’t quite tell where you are clicking because, your finger is blocking what you are touching.

Generally speaking the first thing I do is disable the thing if I get a computer with one.

It is, but it also isn’t. We act on the assumption of free will. But really the assumed consequences for ones actions, is obviously one of the things that elminates the control of them. Therefore whether our thoughts are free or not. we would not remove the consequences for ours and other actions because, that would remove a force preventing them from doing things which harm us.

It’s not something I would want (for me I wouldn’t enjoy sex in a transaction situation) , but no assuming consent, both parties being mentally able and un-coerced enough to decide whether the transaction is worth it to both of them. I do not see anything inherently different in those transactions. Now for some having sex is a high psychological toll… for some it is less of a toll, same could be said for painting, for some the physical toll of climbing and painting would totally wreck their bodies and cause serious injury, for some they would be more than able to.

Sex is just an action the human body can do. It comes with risks, it can be enjoyable to some, it can be degrading or painful to some in different situations. I see nothing wrong with anyone chosing to take those actions. There is of course something wrong with people being co-erced, forced to do things they don’t want to do, and not being compensated fairly for what they chose to do.

Can’t say I disagree with you… slaves got paid… in the sense that they had their housing, food etc… covered for them. As wages are dropping to the point where they barely cover enough for, bare minimum housing, and enough food to stay alive… the only real difference is we get to have a different master quarter us than we have making us do the work, the net result is about the same.

See but there’s the point, Assuming the sex worker is, being paid fairly, and chosing to do it for the money, I can’t see it as drastically different than someone doing any other task for the purposes of collecting a paycheck.

Now with both there is the exploitive nature of systems in general. IE a boss, corporation or pimp that takes 90% of the income for the product of other peoples work. Exploitive systems that force people to work in situations which they get only a fraction of the value of their work to the person, under threats of starvation, deportation, homelessness etc…

I still fail to find the killer statement on why sex work is really that different from regular work. Again asside from higher frequency of blatant abusers, and human traffickers forcing people into sex slavery.

But the general idea, cutting out possible abusive bosses, captors etc… on both scenerios.

I fail to see a difference between.

A person, accepting an offer to have sex with someone, in pre-agreed upon ways, for a pre-agreed upon price, doing what she offered to do, and recieving the agreed upon payment on completion.

A person, agreeing to an offer to paint someone’s house, to an agreed upon standard, for an agreed upon price and recieving a payment on completion.

Both of these tasks carry risks, working on a house contains risks of injury from falling, toll on body due to repetitive stress injuries, possible chemical hazards from paint/thinner etc… which also can be factored into the price. As the sex worker has risks of diseases etc…

Now yes, in either situation if human trafficking is involved. If the person painting the house, or having sex is not actually free, is actually working under threat of death and the payment is going to some other person, that is a horrific situation.

But my point is the actual nature of transactionally “selling your body”. In which case, both of these situations are more or less doing the exact same thing. It’s effectively renting yourself, accepting the damage you are doing to your body in the process of this activity, giving up your time doing a task you probably are not enjoying in this context (though there’s nothing wrong with it if you do enjoy the task even in this context), in exchange for money.

If you have to pay someone to have sex with you, they don’t actually want to have sex with you. If you’re still willing to take advantage, you’re a rapist. Simple as that.

How is that different than say… if you have to pay someone to tar your roof, they don’t want to tar your roof, If you are willing to take advantage you are a slaver?

Now don’t get me wrong, sex work has much worse track record of abuse than manual labor, though I would also say it’s quite probable that is because of it’s underground nature… criminalized things attract criminals, same way that illegal marijuana results in drug dealing groups that commit horrible crimes and shootings defending their territories etc…

do we gotta use china as our example? A place with even worse controlled media, bad history of lying to WHO etc…