Montreal Escorts

Selling sex is a choice

General Gonad

Enlightened pervert
Dec 31, 2005
3,459
6
0
Are prostitutes the ultimate proletariats?

Well, not according to Marx who used the term 'lumpenproletariat' to describe what he saw as social outcasts.

GG

The Proletariat in Marxist theory

In Marxist theory, the proletariat is that class of society which does not have ownership of the means of production. Proletarians are wage-workers, while some refer to those who receive salaries as the salariat. For Marx, however, wage labor may involve getting a salary rather than a wage per se.

Marxism sees the proletariat and bourgeoisie (capitalist class) as occupying conflicting positions, since (for example) factory workers automatically wish wages to be as high as possible, while owners and their proxies wish for wages (costs) to be as low as possible.

In Marxist theory, the proletariat may also include (1) some elements of the petty bourgeoisie, if they rely primarily but not exclusively on self-employment at an income no different from an ordinary wage or below it, and (2) the lumpenproletariat, who are not in legal employment. Intermediate positions are possible, where some wage-labor for an employer combines with self-employment. Socialist political parties have often struggled over the question of whether they should seek to organize and represent the entire proletariat, or just the wage-earning working class.

According to Marxism, capitalism is a system based on the exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie (the "capitalists", who own and control the means of production). This exploitation takes place as follows: the workers, who own no means of production of their own, must seek jobs in order to live. They get hired by a capitalist and work for him, producing some sort of goods or services. These goods or services then become the property of the capitalist, who sells them and gets a certain amount of money in exchange. One part of the wealth produced is used to pay the workers' wages, while the other part (surplus value) is split between the capitalist's private takings (profit), and the money used to pay rent, buy supplies and renew the forces of production. Thus the capitalist can earn money (profit) from the work of his employees without actually doing any work, or in excess of his own work. Marxists argue that new wealth is created through work; therefore, if someone gains wealth that he did not work for, then someone else works and does not receive the full wealth created by his work. In other words, that "someone else" is exploited. Thus, Marxists argue that capitalists make a profit by exploiting workers.

Marx himself argued that it was the goal of the proletariat itself to displace the capitalist system with socialism, changing the social relationships underpinning the class system and then developing into a communist society in which: "..the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all" (Communist Manifesto).

Arnold J. Toynbee uses the term "internal" and "external proletariat" in his monumental "A Study of History" to describe the groups within and external to the frontiers of the state, who during the time of troubles, the World Empire and the decay of a civilization, are progressively disenfranchised, and come to have little loyalty to the survival of that civilization.

Marx makes a clear distinction of proletariat as salaried workers, which he sees a progressive class, with Lumpenproletariat, "rag-proletariat", the poorest and outcasts of the society, such as beggars, tricksters, entertainers, buskers, criminals and prostitutes, which he considers a retrograde class [1]. According to Lenin, the Lumpenproletariat belongs in the "reactionary classes" and is to be destroyed during the dictatorship of proletariat [2].
 

General Gonad

Enlightened pervert
Dec 31, 2005
3,459
6
0
traveller_76 said:
Actually, Marx made no such distinction between prostitutes belonging to a 'rag-proletariat' and women who were say, 'bourgeois wives' - at least not in the Communist Manifesto, which is pretty much the only place you'll find Marx's views on women. He considered all women to be instruments of production, no matter where they found themselves on the chain of production, at the top, being the happy house-wives of their rich husbands, or at the bottom, working their ass off (sometimes literally ;)) selling their labour.

So bourgeois housewives were integrated into 'a system of wives in common', or a system of private prostitution. The aim of Communism was to do away with this status of women as 'mere instruments of production', which is at the foundation of what we more generally consider to be prostitution:


If you are in fact interested in Marx's views on women and their place in the capitalist system for the purpose of linking those ideas back with the discussion here, I suggest going back to the source and reading chapter 2 of the Manifesto. I believe it is available online. Simply do a key word search.

t76,

I never considered Marx as a man with progressive feminist views since his focus was more on exploitation of the proletariat and not specifically women.

Thanks again, I hope you're doing well.:)

GG
 
Last edited:

General Gonad

Enlightened pervert
Dec 31, 2005
3,459
6
0
Marx and Modern Political Theory: From Hobbes to Contemporary Feminism

This book on political theory looks very interesting:

http://books.google.com/books?id=kvG8DVBeT9QC&pg=PA323&lpg=PA323&dq=marx's+views+on+women&source=web&ots=bHE8-KyxdY&sig=nYjfiYvnTcLNodRfLTO-Gczs8EQ#PPA323,M1

(need to copy & paste link to view page; all eight chapters are on that link)


On page 324 of the book, Kain writes that "capitalism creates the conditions for the development of a higher and more humane form of family and of relations between the sexes, but in the meantime it oppresses the family and women in a more brutal fashion than before. Moreover, it does not follow from any of this that Marx's view is that socialism will automatically emancipate women, as is suggested by modern feminists."

GG
 
Last edited:

putneyswope

New Member
Jun 1, 2007
67
0
0
Eastern Promises

See the movie!!!!!!!!!!!!
Face the facts Eastern Europeans and Isrealis as well as amny Chinese swindle, con, drug, kidnap the kids and parents to get many of these women to escort!!!!!!!!
And when it comes to Marx, the crime element was there as a result of the black market not as a result of the communist manifesto, which has enough fucked up shit about it without organized crime!!!!!!!!!!
 

General Gonad

Enlightened pervert
Dec 31, 2005
3,459
6
0
Explanation and Emancipation in Marxism and Feminism

traveller_76 said:
Feminist theory replaces classes with gender, the solution is thus not in a redistibution of power through a reorganization of the classes (or the destruction of classes), which is implied in a shift to socialism, but through a redistribution (in varying degrees, depending on the feminist ;)) of power between genders. The problem for Marx in the Capitalist system are the capitalist laws and rules that permit the oppression of the proletariat by the bourgeois. The problem for feminists (radical feminists like Dworkin and Mackinnon for instance, who have an 'air' of Marxism to them) rests also in the laws, but in this case male laws. Radical feminists think the State inherently male and that men are inherently oppressors of women, therefore the State is inherently an oppressor of women. Like for Marxists, this State also needs to be reorganised, but thats all Marxism and that kind of feminism have in common. The State must be reeingenered according to (or by being more inclusive of) female precepts, which may or may not have resonnance with communist or socialist precepts.


t76,

Very interesting, I agree with your analysis. Except for this paper, I have not found many discussions on the contrast between the Marxist and feminist traditions of emancipatory social theory:

Explanation and Emancipation in Marxism and Feminism
Erik Olin Wright
Sociological Theory, Vol. 11, No. 1 (Mar., 1993), pp. 39-54
doi:10.2307/201979
This article consists of 16 page(s).

Abstract

This paper explores a contrast between the Marxist and feminist traditions of emancipatory social theory: whereas in the Marxist tradition theorists have spent considerable time and energy discussing the problem of the viability of classlessness as an emancipatory project, feminists have spent relatively little time defending the viability of a society without male domination. The paper argues that this difference in preoccupations reflects, at least to some extent, differences in the relationship between prefigurative egalitarian micro experiences and macro institutional change with respect to gender oppression and class oppression. The paper also explores the implications of this contrast for the kinds of explanatory theory developed within the two traditions. Marxists' greater tendency than feminists to seek relatively deterministic accounts of the demise of the form of oppression on which they focus is viewed as at least partially a way of contending with the difficulty in establishing the viability of the emancipatory project of classlessness.


I am also in agreement with G.A. Cohen, a well-known Marxist theorist who has heavily criticized Rawls' theory of distributive justice, alluding to points made by the feminist theorist Susan Okin.

The passage below was taken from here:

http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/D9443077-801D-4C25-BA38-D5687601AC3C/0/feminism_multicu.pdf

thanks again,

GG


Further Beyond Formal Equality: Preferences and Culture

But does it demand more? GA Cohen argues that it does, in the case of economic justice. Rawls’s view, he says, is insufficiently egalitarian, and the limits on its egalitarianism come from its failure to see that principles of justice founded on the equality of persons apply not only to our laws and institutions but also to the preferences that guide our conduct. By excluding the personal from the political—taking preferences and values and therefore incentive-demanding behavior as given—Rawls ends up accommodating injustice within the core of his theory of fair distribution. (The same general criticism applies to Dworkin as well.)

In making this point, Cohen generalizes, he says, on a point associated with feminist political thought: a point expressed in the slogan that “the person is political.” Suppose, feminists have said, that we begin with the safe premise that men and women are to be treated as equals. And suppose that this means that sexual differences are not to be made sources of disadvantage: that when it comes to social opportunities, sexual difference should not be a determinant of success: that, in Susan Okin’s words, “women should not disadvantaged by their sex.” Suppose now that men and women are socially unequal not because of legally imposed differences but because of expectations and attitudes conveyed through upbringing and culture—because of the “gender ethos” of the society. Suppose—as Susan Okin argued in her Justice, Gender and the Family—that men and women have unequal opportunities in the labor market because of the gendered division of labor in the family: because women are expected to carry the largest burden at home. And suppose that that expectation itself is reproduced by the culture and by the way that kids are raised.

Making these assumptions, we cannot treat the culture, or the family, as arenas beyond justice. The reach of the ideal of treating people as equals is much greater.
 

General Gonad

Enlightened pervert
Dec 31, 2005
3,459
6
0
Alan Woods: Marxism versus feminism

An excellent article by Alan Woods contrasting Marxism vs. feminism:

http://www.marxist.com/women/marxism_v_feminism.html

If you read this, he makes the argument that class emancipation is an overriding condition for establishing gender emancipation.

GG
 
Last edited:

beautydigger

Banned
Oct 11, 2005
539
0
16
All this talk about Marxists, feminism, and capitalism and no mentioning of the fact that communism used feminism to try to collapse the capitol system in the US. And by the way, it has worked. The traditional family system was the target and it barely exists anymore. Also American communists used prostitutes at there gatherings to gain more membership. Hillary (who is a great fan of Marx) is already pushing a socialist agenda with her health care plan. I don’t think you will find the underlying motives of Marx in the Manifesto.
 

rumpleforeskiin

It's a whole new ballgame
Jan 20, 2007
6,560
28
48
49
Where I belong.
beautydigger said:
All this talk about Marxists, feminism, and capitalism and no mentioning of the fact that communism used feminism to try to collapse the capitol system in the US.
Oh, can you please give some details?
beautydigger said:
And by the way, it has worked.
The capitol (sic) system has failed? Can you please elaborate on this?
beautydigger said:
The traditional family system was the target and it barely exists anymore.
New to me. Can you please give some details on just how the traditional family system barely exists?
beautydigger said:
Also American communists used prostitutes at there gatherings to gain more membership.
Naturally, you'll be happy to provide us with some documentation of this, no?
beautydigger said:
Hillary (who is a great fan of Marx) is already pushing a socialist agenda with her health care plan.
Two assertions here. Again, I'm sure you can back this up with the facts. We're waiting.

You can't go around spreading stupid shit like this without facts, quotes, footnotes to back it up.
 

beautydigger

Banned
Oct 11, 2005
539
0
16
rumpleforeskiin said:
You can't go around spreading stupid shit like this without facts, quotes, footnotes to back it up.
I resent your comment and realize your lack of research skills. So let me enlighten you one quote at a time.

In a recent book, Red Feminism: American Communism and the Making of Women's Liberation, (2002) feminist historian Kate Weigand states: "ideas, activists and traditions that emanated from the Communist movement of the forties and fifties continued to shape the direction of the new women's movement of the 1960s and later."(154)

In fact, Weigand, a lecturer at Smith College, shows that modern feminism is a direct outgrowth of American Communism. There is nothing that feminists said or did in the 1960's-1980's that wasn't prefigured in the CPUSA of the 1940's and 1950's. Many second-wave feminist leaders were "red diaper babies," the children of Communists.

What makes you think you know everything when you can't even do research.
 

rumpleforeskiin

It's a whole new ballgame
Jan 20, 2007
6,560
28
48
49
Where I belong.
beautydigger said:
In a recent book, Red Feminism: American Communism and the Making of Women's Liberation, (2002) feminist historian Kate Weigand states: "ideas, activists and traditions that emanated from the Communist movement of the forties and fifties continued to shape the direction of the new women's movement of the 1960s and later."(154)

What makes you think you know everything when you can't even do research.
Thanks for this. Didn't take long to figure out that you've got it backwards. According to Weigand, the feminists of the 60s and beyond drew on the teachings of the the Communists. While the Communists of the 30s did preach gender equity, you still provide no link between their belief in gender equity and their attempts to undermine the capitol (sic) system. Furthermore, you have yet to show how the capitol (sic) system has failed. Nor have you backed up any of your other moronic assertions.
 

beautydigger

Banned
Oct 11, 2005
539
0
16
No need to waste my time on a coolaid drinking liberal who can't even comprehend my last post. Did you miss this part (one quote at a time).

And what was the cold war about? Are you trying to say communism isn't trying to undermine and distroy capitalism.
 
Last edited:
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts