this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2026
320 points (99.7% liked)

Memes of Production

1717 readers
478 users here now

Seize the Memes of Production

An international (English speaking) socialist Lemmy community free of the “ML” influence of instances like lemmy.ml and lemmygrad. This is a place for undogmatic shitposting and memes from a progressive, anti-capitalist and truly anti-imperialist perspective, regardless of specific ideology.

Rules:
Be a decent person.
No racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, zionism/nazism, and so on.

Other Great Communities:

founded 8 months ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old

But does literally anyone say that sex workers are enemies of the working class? Sure, that's a shitty take, but is it one that exists in reality or was the person here in 2020 just shouting into the void at an imaginary strawman?

[–] k0e3@lemmy.ca 34 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yeah I feel like this person is getting all riled up about something that doesn't happen. I've heard people say it's immoral, dangerous, exploitative, etc... but enemy of the working class?

[–] Kangae_Hishiryo@scribe.disroot.org 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

The fact that you never had the bad luck of hearing any of them doesn't mean that they don't exist. They do, particularly between tankies, the "alt-left" and the extreme radical left. Also there are some pseudo-leftoid people that don't actually know anything about leftism and all that do is just speaking pseudointellectual nonsense.

[–] k0e3@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I'm not calling you a liar, but I don't wanna believe it until I see it. And I don't wanna see it because the world is crazy enough as I see it.

Yeah, that's totally fair. But I'm just pointing out that ausence of evidence isn't evidence of ausence.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] CobraCommander@quokk.au 26 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

Marx did.

He considered sex workers part of the lumpenproletariat, the lowest of the low alongside drug addicts, thieves, unemployed, etc. and he viewed them as a dangerous class who could be bribed by the rich to turn against the proletariat.

[–] Jean_le_Flambeur@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Sure he counted them to the lumpenproletariat, but do you have a text where he actually declares the lumpenproletariat enemy if the working class?

Recalling from memory he saw them as victims of capitalism who deserve better...

So he's not actually thinking they are class enemies by design. He thought its a class that shouldn't exist because the hardships they are forced to go through.

He didn't want people forced into protitution by the system, I dont think he would have something against emancipated sex workers who work in the field from a desire to do so.

[–] menas@lemmy.wtf 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Marx position was not about who shall be emancipated or not but who have an interest to struggle for the revolution. In his mind, a part of the proletariat was too precarious, and could be easily corrupt by the bourgeoisie. Such as thieves and cops.

However with the development of the communists party and their propaganda around ouvrierism, the pride of workers turn to be the pride to work. The lumpen became a slur against people that do not work enough; a conception close to the far-right view of unemployed "parasites". That's why nobody use that term anymore, even if it's still accurate for cops and managers

[–] Jean_le_Flambeur@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

I ask again, does anyone has a quote on that?

I read the capital, the manifesto, the Feuerbach thesen and the 18the brumaire of Luis Bonaparte in German original and can't recall what you propose. But there are lots of other texts, so if what you say is source based, I am pleased to learn.

"Lumpen" is German for rags, meaning the poorest of the poor, I can't imagine him using that for managers and the like, in another way than sarcastic. It would absolutely not fit into his theory of society.

[–] commiunism@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

What I think the reference is to is

The “dangerous class”, [lumpenproletariat] the social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of the old society, may, here and there, be swept into the movement by a proletarian revolution; its conditions of life, however, prepare it far more for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue.

from the chapter 1 of the 'festo, and even though it's harsh it does state that it's not an inevitability, but rather a more likely outcome.

yeah, that's a cryout about the conditions they have to live under and that they are in danger of being bribed into doing actions that are actually against their material interest

Its the opposite of saying "the material conditions make them an enemy of the working class"

[–] naeap@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 week ago

Yeah, never heard that as well - quote would be nice

[–] menas@lemmy.wtf 2 points 1 week ago

Their is what Marx said and whats marxists made of that. Again, this is poorly defined in Marx text and spread in a lot of them. You'd rather rely on people that study the lumpen as a context, maybe Jean-Claude Bourdin. However for orthodoxes : "From whore to pope, there is a mass of such rabble. But the honest and ‘working’ lumpenproletariat belongs here as well;" - Grundrisse

[–] commiunism@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

If you had read marx, you'd know that those are categories that show one's relation to means of production. For instance, an artisan isn't automatically a petite bourgeois or proletariat, it depends on if they own their MOP they work with.

The few sex workers privileged/lucky enough to be relatively independent on onlyfans or other sites are petit bourgeois, those who work in countries where sex work is legalized and is essentially a day job for wage are proletarian, and those who do it illegally, likely under a pimp (who is also lumpen) and/or gangs, essentially being their asset is lumpenproletariat.

The lumpen prostitute was pretty much the only type back then, and them + other lumpens such as thieves and thugs were actually mobilized by reactionaries to coup the French government (18th Brumaire) during Marx's time, thus the analysis that, again, they could be mobilized by reaction.

[–] Jean_le_Flambeur@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Yeah, and he clearly states they are misled into being reactionary because obviously its in their material interest to abolish the private ownership of production, as they suffer the most from it.

Anyone can be bribed Into actions which are against his class interest, but because the lumpenproletariat is so poor and desperate, the cost of bribing them is much lower and therefore the risk of them being bribed in relevant numbers into being reactionary much greater

[–] grrgyle@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 week ago (3 children)

If Marx gets to edit out the parts of Hegel he didn't like, then I get to do the same with Marx.

Just that he didn't actually say this and op is either lying or massively misunderstanding Marx.

Hence he only replies to people agreeing with him and not to the ones wondering where he got that from asking for a source or quote.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 1 week ago

Yeah, most of the critiques on sex work you hear from the left is that it's such an inherently shitty and degrading job that it should be banned because it is so exploitative.

[–] HootinNHollerin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 23 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Who is saying that though

[–] CrimeIsLegalNow@ani.social 20 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Who said that in the first place?

[–] protogen420@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 week ago

iPhone users masking as leftists on twitter make up their imaginary enemies to shit on

[–] Dippy@beehaw.org 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

This is the question that needs to be asked everytime an outrage discourse starts

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] echodot@feddit.uk 15 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I don't think I've ever heard anyone make that statement before. Mostly because that statement is utterly irrational even if you don't think that sex workers should be a supported business.

[–] Postimo@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

There are a brand of folks derogatorily called SWERFs or sex worker exclusionary radical feminists. It's not a super common view, but exists, and I'm sure as a sex worker she's experienced plenty of it on twitter.

[–] axx@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yeah, this is a very weird tweet. It almost is like that person doesn't want to think of the realities of procuring. Sure buddy, the women having to sell their bodies / services to rich men got to keep all the money and then spend it in their communities.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] commiunism@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 1 week ago (5 children)

"erm sex work is actually heccin wholesome" oh my fucking god, execute all porn addicted brain rotted gooners please

Money is needed to purchase your needs for survival, without it you're pretty much dead. You cannot buy consent with money, you cannot go up to someone and say "hey let's have sex in exchange for your means of survival", it is literally just commodified rape in every sense.

What makes it worse is that if you look at sex work industry, the vast majority of sex workers are single mothers with children to care for :) with major spikes in their quantity during times of economic downturn :))), meaning that for them it's "get raped by this guy for money or you and your child will starve to death"

This shit is horrifying, it's not wholesome it's not revolutionary, and if you think that it is then genuinely seek help for your porn addiction or at least give it a bit more thought. It makes me unreasonably angry due to my own life experiences, not because of some vague moralism.

[–] nibbler@discuss.tchncs.de 12 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (12 children)

I'm really torn by this argument. To me it's mainly an argument against capitalism (and a valid one for that).

The vast majority of cleaning personal might as well be single mothers to meet their means of survival. Also: where I am, there is "good enough" social security, so it's not about survival.

People working at construction sites are ruining their body to make ends meet (to pick up your argument again). Sure, you could not argue that they are raped, but enslaved then.

Edit: the -> there

[–] commiunism@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Yes, wage labor is also shit, it is inherently exploitative and you're also forced to sell your labor power to procure your needs for survival. While work itself is necessary to sustain life, wage labor isn't and it's not something to valorize.

This post is literally valorizing one of the most horrible types of work, ones that more often than not results in literal slavery by pimps, targets the most desperate and vulnerable, and in general commodifies one of the most intimate activities two consenting adults can do and gives 'customers' carte blanche to rape.

The amount of violence, trafficking, abuse, trauma, etc sex industry (even in regulated form) creates is horrifying, but I guess it's okay because it "supports the local community!! Be sure to purchase your own sex slave today!". It's not a wholesome 100 small business.

[–] nibbler@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I absolutely condemn pimping and forced labor (sex or other). So I guess I agree with you quite a bit.

But where does this turn into rape? I can't follow. "Rape is a type of sexual assault involving sexual intercourse or other forms of sexual penetration carried out against a person without their consent." (I googled, AI spit that out, claims it's from Wikipedia. But I hope we can vaguely agree on this definition?). It's bought consent. A huge amount of consent is bought, outside of prostitution. With money, with power, with influence.

[–] velma@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Just because you have exchanged money for sex doesn't mean the sex worker can no longer revoke consent. Rape is a huge danger for sex workers and it is wild that you're sitting here confused about how rape happens.

[–] nibbler@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I never discussed revoked consent, and I fully agree that consent can change. Never said anything different, right?

I'm not confused, and you start making things up.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] commiunism@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Consent isn't something that's bought or sold, 'bought consent' is literally coercion.

Compare and contrast two situations: one, where two people go "hey, we both like each other and are both horny, let's do it tonight" and thus doing it to share intimacy/mutually satisfy their needs and another where a stranger goes "hey, let me fuck you and I'll give you money so you can afford your future survival, or starve to death", and it doesn't have to be money but position of power or other type of coercion. Even if the other person in the second example agrees, it's not because they freely "want to do it" (they might not even have a choice) but because of what they might receive after the act, one person using their position of power over another.

If it's coercion, there can be no free consent. If there's no consent, it's rape (like the definition you dropped says). If the rape is sold for money, it's merely commodified.

[–] nibbler@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

My boss used to buy my consent to do his (non sex) work for many years.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] Juice@midwest.social 10 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (4 children)

The problem here is that the poster is not necessarily a "porn-addicted gooner" but a sex worker herself. So she is also speaking from her own experiences. I think the problem is that very valid concerns, such as your own, can be weaponized against individual sex workers to alienate them from our movements. So even if your arguments don't originate from a place of vague moralism, they still function to reinforce divisions of labor, which only benefits the ruling capitalist class, the pimps, the exploiters.

A fundamental part of any struggle for liberation is the struggle for legitimacy against individual dehumanization via structural delegitimization. You compare sex work to slavery, which is a good comparison in many ways, especially since we live in a (mostly) post-slavery society and are able to criticize slavery from a position of moral and social certainty. It has been thoroughly delegitimized by history and only persists in the shadows of production.

W.E.B DuBois makes some observations about chattel slavery before the civil war:

The slavery of Negroes in the South was not usually a deliberately cruel and oppressive system. It did not mean systematic starvation or murder.

The victims of Southern slavery were often happy; had usually adequate food for their health, and shelter sufficient for a mild climate. The Southerners could say with some justification that when the mass of their field hands were compared with the worst class of laborers in the slums of New York and Philadelphia, and the factory towns of New England, the black slaves were as well off and in some particulars better off. Slaves lived largely in the country where health conditions were better; they worked in the open air, and their hours were about the current hours for peasants throughout Europe. They received no formal education, and neither did the Irish peasant, the English factory-laborer, nor the German Bauer; and in contrast with these free white laborers, the Negroes were protected by a certain primitive sort of old-age pension, job insurance, and sickness insur­ ance; that is, they must be supported in some fashion, when they were too old to work; they must have attention in sickness, for they represented invested capital; and they could never be among the unemployed.

This is not an argument for slavery, but an objective assessment based on actual people's experience of their own lives, that exists as part of a soaring criticism of slavery. But it demonstrates that people who were enslaved could feel happy, healthy, and "taken care of" despite being victimized by absolutely horrific means of production. The victims of chattel slavery emancipated themselves during the battles of the USAmerican civil war, and many of them not just willingly became soldiers but eagerly sought the right to self emancipate, to fight and die bravely for their own freedom. During Reconstruction, even the people who stayed behind on the land their masters bound them to, who obediently supported the southern armies, were extremely committed to the cause of freedom and emancipation for black victims of slavery, and were not willing to give up the project of black emancipation.

Slaves were, according to DuBois and any material analysis, part of the working class. This original post is explicitly saying that sex workers are not enemies of the working class, and the "pro sex work" leftist position is that sex workers are workers. Granted, I def know comrades who hire sex workers and probably use the leftist argument to legitimize their own desires, but I doubt that the shared experience is one of rape. These experiences definitely exist within the objective social structures of sex work, and I don't think that engaging in sex work as supplier or consumer is any more revolutionary, arguably less, than any other consumer decision.

But the important part is that sex workers are part of the workers movement, are welcomed and empowered to speak and act on their own experiences, and struggle for their own emancipation of sex work. Now a lot of times a common reform suggested is the legalization of sex work, which is suggested to improve protections of sex workers. I think if we continue the slavery comparison, it gets really difficult to stand by this argument, as legalization of slavery is the legitimization of it, and subsequently, the structural manifestation of exploitation. Legalization of slavery under capitalism is just going to make conditions worse for all workers. Legalizing sex work, as a movement, would also be extremely difficult as I think you'd automatically have like 70-80% of women firmly against it.

But this is how it functions as a division of labor. If people are arguing that sex workers are enemies of the working class, this is wrong as they are part of the working class therefore their exploitation is part of the exploitation of all workers. Like you said, lots of sex workers are single mothers with minimal qualms about it, just trying to provide for themselves and their children. So I question anyone who jumps into a thread about whether sex workers are enemies of the working class who make broad generalizations about the nature of the work that seem to also shout down the experiences of the sex workers themselves. Like, I have a lot of sexual trauma that I gave consent to. I don't dispute that consent is contextual, and can be seen quite differently even years after the fact.

But sex workers have to be centered in the project for their own liberation, as only they are able to liberate themselves. And delegitimizing their experiences and views, even if they are wrong-headed, only reinforces the divisions of labor that contributes to their exploitation as well as the working class generally. I think the whole discussion around sex work is framed in a way that harms both side's ability to see the other perspective, which just deepens the divisions between workers.

Like I agree with everything you said, but the fact that you said it in response to this post kinda proves that the well is poisoned on this discourse.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] DudleyMason@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 week ago (2 children)

"sucking a stranger's dick for money is more horrifying and degrading than cleaning a stranger's toilet for money" and other statements only ever spoken aloud by people who have neither sucked dicks nor cleaned toilets for money.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] tachikoma@lemmy.today 3 points 1 week ago

I find it odd that your definition of sex workers ends a prostitution. What about.... Strippers and Private Dancers?

What about onlyfans men and women, eroticica writers, or hentai artists? These sex workers bearly interact with their customers in the real world! (Okay I've seen some onlyfans prostitution. I digress.)

Did Markpiler get raped when he did some sex work?

Finally. No I will not turn off my gooner brain. You loons need turn off your violence brain and turn on your gooner brain. Sex is way more fun, and cooperative, than violence.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Gullible@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 week ago

Sex workers literally colonized the world. Step 1 to inviting people into an area to build a new community is to build a brothel. Madames, the owners, were considered real leaders with strong soft power, as they were some of the earliest settlers with invaluable economic and social connections. People really like to forget how much sex workers have done for humanity.

[–] _druid@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Not the only thing trickling down, ifyaknowwhatimsayinhah

[–] DeadEndLink@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 week ago

Heyyyyooooo

[–] teslekova@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 week ago
[–] diaphragmwp@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

"funneling" depends if they are on the streets or if hired by someone to entertain their clients. Victims either way, though.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] notsure@fedia.io 6 points 1 week ago

...there is a reason it is called, "The Oldest Profession"...all y'all puritans are weird...

[–] waltersf@bookwyr.me 5 points 1 week ago

true in 2020, true now

now donate that iphone

[–] menas@lemmy.wtf 4 points 1 week ago (2 children)

A trade union confederation do unionize sex workers as such, and the sex workers section is on the fediverse : https://lemmy.wtf/u/cntstp67tds@pixelfed.fr

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] chemicalprophet@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 week ago
load more comments
view more: next ›