/social/ - Socialism

oddfork.webp
[Hide] (43.5KB, 720x720)

>>749 (OP) 
>Why do radlibs simp for "sex workers" so hard? 
>She is not proletarian because [...]
Why would radlibs care about who is proletarian or not? They don't use Marxist economic classes to define who they feel sorry for. Last I checked we were mocking them for celebrating black female CEOs.
>because she is not a producing member of society, meaning producing something that sustains society
I've gotta say, this is a bizarre way to define the proletariat. It almost seems like a weird purity spiraling about which workers are best under capitalism, rather than focusing on their relationship to the means of production and how it guides their class conditions. Why should a warehouse packer employed by SlopCo boxing up gruel be a proletarian while a warehouse packer employed by PlayCo boxing up pop culture merch be a.... what other economic class? Certainly not bourgeois or peasantry!
>Finally, how much money you make does have an impact on whether or not you have an urge to overturn the current mode of production. Wealthy working class people and poor working class people are not equivalent just because both sell their labour.
What's your point? I seriously hope you aren't suggesting that wealth or income determine whether you are "not proletarian". Economic classes are not some ultimate way of deciding who is socialist or not, class traitors aren't a contradiction of classes.

>>749 (OP) 
> redundant luxury good
That has nothing to do with whether the person who produced it is a prole/worker.
>self-employed people
Not really a class category unto itself. Contractors can alternately have their own employees, or be de facto employees having their labor exploited, or be the sole producer selling directly to customers. Those are all different class positions, and in the porn/sex industry as a whole there are people in each of those positions.
> how much money you make does have an impact on whether or not you have an urge to overturn the current mode of production
Most of the people selling nudes on the internet have day jobs. A lot of them do it to help cover the cost of education. The ones making a lot of money are the exception not the rule. This kind of analysis is like looking at the NBA and concluding that anybody who plays basketball is not proletarian.

"is coffee good for you" ah thread

this is a troll thread.webp
[Hide] (53.9KB, 960x960)

Nice try.

Didn't read. I wanna motorboat those tits

1728113541764.jpg
[Hide] (44.6KB, 900x600)

>>752
>I've gotta say, this is a bizarre way to define the proletariat. It almost seems like a weird purity spiraling about which workers are best under capitalism, rather than focusing on their relationship to the means of production and how it guides their class conditions. Why should a warehouse packer employed by SlopCo boxing up gruel be a proletarian while a warehouse packer employed by PlayCo boxing up pop culture merch be a.... what other economic class? Certainly not bourgeois or peasantry!
socialism does not mean throwing resources into the void, therefore there will only be as much sex produced as satisfies the parties partaking of the sex.
socialism means many things, i do suggest perusing literature on this subject
one way of distributing sex would be establishing public facilities where individuals can freely engage in sex, not too dissimilar from supermarkets. individuals seeking sex would congregate in these facilities and fulfill each other's sexual needs. this, combined with comprehensive sexual education workshops to empower individuals to explore their sexuality, should eventually result in the satisfaction of social sexual needs
there may be a need for trained professionals to provide sexual services to people with physical disabilities or trauma survivors, but i am not an expert on that subject. neither am i some manner of sexual liberation vanguard and my opinions should not be taken as gospel.