I’d really like an answer from the anti-capitalist community right now. Yesterday I put up a video denouncing Amnesty International for supporting the legitimization of prostitution. Basically it’s the single worst thing that can be done to a woman in poverty. Yet this organization wants to make that a legitimate business. I wasn’t too surprised that AI would support such a thing. What shocked me was the amount of so-called Marxists who are running around supporting it.
I don’t need to point out how prostitution is bad, that has been done to death. If you don’t know it by now then you don’t want to know.
So let me get this straight. Wage labour is a form of slavery and exploitation (which it is), but prostitution and porn isn’t. How the fuck does this work in their minds? Exchange labour for money and it’s exploitation. Exchange sexual labour for money and it’s freedom? This makes absolutely no sense. None whatsoever. You expect a right winger to support it because of a fettishization of the fee market. You also expect them to support it because they support property rights over human rights. This usually means women as property as well.
Every time I hear one of these so-called Marxists defending it, they just ignore the fact it’s wage labour. In fact it’s worse than wage labour. During employment you’re selling your labour power (your ability to work), in prostitution you’re selling yourself. Commodification is something Marxism is opposed to. When you point this out they resort to, “if we make it legal then we can make safer working conditions and have prostitute unions.” An important point here is that this plan has NEVER WORKED, IT DOESN’T WORK. By this same logic, if we just make wage labour jobs better and safer then there’s no problem with it. You can have unions, have the state institutionalize a higher minimum wage. Ta-da! Wage labour is now no longer a bad thing. But these so-called Marxists aren’t willing to follow their own logic.
Where have I heard this before? Focus on making something bad easier to stomach rather than abolish it. Oh right, First Worldism! Why organize a revolution when you can just vote for Bernie Sanders to get all your goodies? Why actually stand up to an oppressive system when you can paint a nice big smiley face on it?
This is wholly First Worldism. It’s the Third World who really suffers from prostitution, just as wage labour. Prostitution in the Third World is a death sentence, it’s literal slavery, and it’s sex trafficking. There is a reason why Third World women are trafficked to the First. There’s a reason why First World men go to the Third World for sex tourism, and not the other way around. First Worldists have all these nice high wages in comparison so there’s no need to fight for revolution. Turn on the television and what do they see? That Bunny Ranch bullshit, and think that’s prostitution. This is not the reality in the Third World (or the First, really). Prostitution there is a horror beyond belief. But since it’s not as bad for First Worlders, then it’s really not that bad for everyone else. So why put out all the effort of fighting it when you can just make it nicer? Because those who really suffer from it, just like wage slavery, are being brutalized to a worse degree… and First Worldists don’t care, because they got theirs. That higher degree of wage labour benefits them, just as the Third World prostitution does.
This is why Marxists in the Third World oppose prostitution. This is also why so-called Marxists in the First World want more of it.
5 thoughts on “Pro-Prostitution: Phony First Worldist Marxism”
It’s a single worst thing that can happen to a woman at all. It is sexual violence. Read the work of a former escort who came from a middle class family but couldn’t live with them due to sexual abuse. That is a factor in driving women into the sex trade as well or as I like to call it commercial rape. http://rebeccamott.net/
Prostitution benefits 1st world men specifically not 1st world women.
Exactly right. Thank you. LM
I think Amnesty supports legalizing the traffickers and pimps as well as the prostituted women; how this will “protect” the women is hard to comprehend. As to why First World Marxists would buy into this without seeing the obvious contradiction, I think this is mostly a male entitlement problem, rooted in patriarchy. It’s claimed that women require “choice” and “agency” in order to “empower” themselves through prostitution, when the goal is really unfettered access to sexual resources.
Comments are closed.