57
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2024
57 points (88.0% liked)
chapotraphouse
13546 readers
817 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Gossip posts go in c/gossip. Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from c/gossip
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
It’s a good example that no one - not even Marx - is free from biases. Marx still has some of his middle class sensibilities around him when he talks about the lumpenproletariat. And I do not buy the argument some make that when Marx calls them “the dangerous classes”, he means they are dangerous to capital; I think he just means he thinks they are dangerous.
And that’s ok. Not every word Marx wrote should be taken as gospel. Nor does that mean the concept of a lumpenproletariat doesn’t have any analytic value.
Genuinely though, it's hard for me to imagine even a petit bourgeois Marx thinking that sex workers are literally dangerous.
Just based off that I tend to think that he didn't mean physically dangerous but socially dangerous. I just don't get it otherwise.
People's brain worms about sex work runs so deep it often seems like the foundation on which they've built everything else. Some of it can be explained as physical danger: sex workers were viewed with some justification as the primary vector of transmission for stis. Back in the day that was a very serious public health problem as illnesses that are treatable today caused enormous harm back then. But that's a public health concern. It has an economic dimension, but the actual labor of sex workers cannot be set apart from that of anyone else who works with their body on the criteria that they were often sti vectors.
There is a social concern that sex workers "break up families", and if that is taken seriously it privileges christian moralism and the boug's legally enforced nuclear family, as some kind of actually existing economic force instead of a flimsy legal fiction that acts as a means to discipline and control workers and enforce social reproduction of labor.
In the final analysis the loathing of sex workers, and their dissmissal as passively victimized minors (in the legal sense of a person who is not legally considered to have agency and responsibility) with no awareness, no agency, and no potential, who can only be patronizingly destroyed for their own good by their moral and intellectual betters, reflects a rank and basal hatred of women and the sexuality which is inherent to them.