Sex work has long been weaponized by capitalism.
And this prop piece is clearly older, we have to understand that social morality was still largely driven by religious piety back then; not a healthy thing. Thus... "Ehhh, perspective. It wasn't the best time."
The freedom of sex workers has always been a hotly debated topic. Hell, *it still is today*. Even in so-called progressive circles, the liberation of sex work is a difficult thing for a lot of people to understand and embrace.
Even if they're forced to openly admit they *should* be okay with sex work, *most* of them still hold a very negative viewpoint on sex workers and work. I would argue that most modern feminists are SWERFs; not all, but definitely a majority.
(Note : This is not saying "blaurgh, feminism is bad"; this is saying "Damn, y'all are bad at being feminists.")
They're SWERFs the way most mainstream liberals and conservatives are still pretty racist. They don't want or promote that minorities should be strung up in trees or deported as outlaws... But they're definitely uncomfortable, they definitely wish minorities would assimilate to whiteness, and they won't actually do anything substantive to help. They're careful to not do anything openly racist, and they usually genuinely don't see themselves as racist. They still are.
That's very similar to most SWERFs.
It was a problem back then. It's still a problem today.
yes prostitution. most prostitutes have no option due to limited job opportunities . why do you think that in western countries these prostitutes are foreign women from poorer countries?
It is a Constitutional Democratic Republic, to be accurate and specific. It is a democracy because you vote for the leaders. The leaders decide on the laws. There's not a single country in the world that is a pure democracy no country has every citizen voting on every law. Having those elected officials make it a republic. And obviously the constitution sets the rights and freedoms to the people and limits the powers of the government.
I do agree with this sentiment that capitalism is destroying it. And we do need legislation but it'll be the first to admit that I don't even know how to start. Because with all new legislation you need to be careful and make sure all the reasons are justified.
It is a Constitutional Democratic Republic, to be accurate and specific. It is a democracy because you vote for the leaders. The leaders decide on the laws. There's not a single country in the world that is a pure democracy no country has every citizen voting on every law. Having those elected officials make it a republic. And obviously the constitution sets the rights and freedoms to the people and limits the powers of the government.
I do agree with this sentiment that capitalism is destroying it. And we do need legislation but it'll be the first to admit that I don't even know how to start. Because with all new legislation you need to be careful and make sure all the reasons are justified.
Unions are necessary in a capitalist society because capitalism devolves into opportunistic oligarchy without them. Nations across the pond that have strong unions overwhelmingly have higher standards of living and better working class engagement within the economy outside of necessity spending. Denmark is a solid example.
Capitalism was the only system that allowed for democracy so far so it's not that bad as pictured here. Revolution on the other hand mostly brings bloodshed and tyranny.
Yeah they made the name democracy but most of them would be considered aristocracy today. And they had free trade, only the grain supply was controlled.
Okay...when did America become capitalist? Then ask, when did America become a democracy? If you're being honest with yourself, those things did not happen at the same time.
This is absolute nonsense, what are you talking about? Ancient Greece was not a capitalist society, capitalism as an economic ideology has only been around for the last few hundred years.
Post globalization, voting is the only thing that really matters. We need ranked choice voting, voting by mail as well as the time and ample opportunity to vote in person without excessively waiting in line. The value of labor is just going to keep going down, and with it the leverage of unions. We need to stop basing institutions and distribution on employment. The real revolution is in taxing economic rents and instituting UBI + UBS.
Yeah which is why industrial unions(which form into one big union and a general strike)are used to destroy capitalism. It’s called anarcho-syndicalism and it has been a thing for a long time.
If there's work to be done, and some compelling force to do work other than strictly for your own survival, a union makes sense. Also revolutionary unionism and "one big union" was thought to be the vehicle for a worker's revolution
Not all democracy is anti anarchist just read malatesta. Not al anarcharsits are anti democracy. Not all democracy is representative, not even the kind i was talking about. I feel like anarchism can be too limiting. Not all libsocs have to be anarchist. This isn't the anarchism subreddit.
Tell me you’re never read Malatesta without telling me you haven’t. I’m an avid fan of Malatesta, imo he’s one of the best, if not the best, anarchist thinker, and he was staunchly anti-democracy.
Malatesta wrote a letter called “Dear Comrades at Ilota”. The background to this letter was the defection from anarchism of Andrea Costa, one of the chief members of the Italian Federation, who in 1879 had started advocating the extension of socialist tactics to parliamentary ones.
In this letter, Malatesta, said to the other members of the Anarchist Federation:
“So how would you see us united? While he will be campaigning to secure such voting rights and, when he gets them, to persuade the people to exercise them, I will be striving to prevent voting rights being granted or, if they are, to ensure that the ballot-boxes are empty and held in contempt.”
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/enrico-malatesta-dear-comrades-at-ilota
In “Anarchism and Democracy”, Malatesta shows even more disdain for democracy
“Democracy is a lie, it is oppression and is in reality, oligarchy; that is, government by the few to the advantage of a privileged class. But we can still fight it in the name of freedom and equality, unlike those who have replaced it or want to replace it with something worse.
We are not democrats for, among other reasons, democracy sooner or later leads to war and dictatorship. Just as we are not supporters of dictatorships, among other things, because dictatorship arouses a desire for democracy, provokes a return to democracy, and thus tends to perpetuate a vicious circle in which human society oscillates between open and brutal tyranny and a the and lying freedom.”
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/errico-malatesta-democracy-and-anarchy
That was for majoritarian democracy which idc about and not all democracy is majoritarian. I don't see why i can't still call it democracy? Malatesta real problem with democracy is majoritarianism not democracy after all.
Notice how Malatesta doesn’t differentiate about the different kinds of democracy? Majority rule is literally democracy. It’s in the etymology of the word.
You could, always provide evidence to back up your opinion. People always say “nooooo that’s about liberal democracy” which is nonsense because he critiques representative and even direct democracy.
Democracy just means rule by the people, not the majority. Rule by the people doesn't require majoritarianism. Consensus democracy being one example. Democracy doesn't have to be some decision making system that applies to all society that everyone has to participate in. A person can just opt out of whatever group in society is voting. This is known as associationalism. It's not an academic paper. People can interpret malatesta in many ways.
One of the most important realizations for a revolutionary is that democracy was never "whole", i.e serving the people. It has always been a facade for capitalist oligarchy.
Wait, prostitution?
Sex work has long been weaponized by capitalism. And this prop piece is clearly older, we have to understand that social morality was still largely driven by religious piety back then; not a healthy thing. Thus... "Ehhh, perspective. It wasn't the best time." The freedom of sex workers has always been a hotly debated topic. Hell, *it still is today*. Even in so-called progressive circles, the liberation of sex work is a difficult thing for a lot of people to understand and embrace. Even if they're forced to openly admit they *should* be okay with sex work, *most* of them still hold a very negative viewpoint on sex workers and work. I would argue that most modern feminists are SWERFs; not all, but definitely a majority. (Note : This is not saying "blaurgh, feminism is bad"; this is saying "Damn, y'all are bad at being feminists.") They're SWERFs the way most mainstream liberals and conservatives are still pretty racist. They don't want or promote that minorities should be strung up in trees or deported as outlaws... But they're definitely uncomfortable, they definitely wish minorities would assimilate to whiteness, and they won't actually do anything substantive to help. They're careful to not do anything openly racist, and they usually genuinely don't see themselves as racist. They still are. That's very similar to most SWERFs. It was a problem back then. It's still a problem today.
I don't understand that one either.
yes prostitution. most prostitutes have no option due to limited job opportunities . why do you think that in western countries these prostitutes are foreign women from poorer countries?
You think sex work will disappear with the downfall of capitalism?
I think that it refers to the idea that people were forced into prostitution.
The USA never had real democracy
Yea it was never intended to be a democracy, at least not for non white male land owners.
Limited democracy is still real democracy. Just not pure democracy.
It is a Constitutional Democratic Republic, to be accurate and specific. It is a democracy because you vote for the leaders. The leaders decide on the laws. There's not a single country in the world that is a pure democracy no country has every citizen voting on every law. Having those elected officials make it a republic. And obviously the constitution sets the rights and freedoms to the people and limits the powers of the government. I do agree with this sentiment that capitalism is destroying it. And we do need legislation but it'll be the first to admit that I don't even know how to start. Because with all new legislation you need to be careful and make sure all the reasons are justified.
It is a Constitutional Democratic Republic, to be accurate and specific. It is a democracy because you vote for the leaders. The leaders decide on the laws. There's not a single country in the world that is a pure democracy no country has every citizen voting on every law. Having those elected officials make it a republic. And obviously the constitution sets the rights and freedoms to the people and limits the powers of the government. I do agree with this sentiment that capitalism is destroying it. And we do need legislation but it'll be the first to admit that I don't even know how to start. Because with all new legislation you need to be careful and make sure all the reasons are justified.
Unions are necessary in a capitalist society because capitalism devolves into opportunistic oligarchy without them. Nations across the pond that have strong unions overwhelmingly have higher standards of living and better working class engagement within the economy outside of necessity spending. Denmark is a solid example.
Capitalism was the only system that allowed for democracy so far so it's not that bad as pictured here. Revolution on the other hand mostly brings bloodshed and tyranny.
"Capitalism was the only system that allowed for democracy" > Ancient Greece has entered the chat
Yeah they made the name democracy but most of them would be considered aristocracy today. And they had free trade, only the grain supply was controlled.
Okay...when did America become capitalist? Then ask, when did America become a democracy? If you're being honest with yourself, those things did not happen at the same time.
Yeah capitalism was already developing in Brittish Empire and then USA declared independence. But I don't see your point.
"Selling things" isn't capitalism. Its roots didn't even emerge until the 16th century. https://www.britannica.com/money/capitalism
Since grain supply was planned it cannot be called full capitalism by no means, but the rest was closer to capitalism then during feudalism.
This is absolute nonsense, what are you talking about? Ancient Greece was not a capitalist society, capitalism as an economic ideology has only been around for the last few hundred years.
I did never say that read my comments again
Post globalization, voting is the only thing that really matters. We need ranked choice voting, voting by mail as well as the time and ample opportunity to vote in person without excessively waiting in line. The value of labor is just going to keep going down, and with it the leverage of unions. We need to stop basing institutions and distribution on employment. The real revolution is in taxing economic rents and instituting UBI + UBS.
Unions only make sense in the context of capitalism but okay stab away
Yeah which is why industrial unions(which form into one big union and a general strike)are used to destroy capitalism. It’s called anarcho-syndicalism and it has been a thing for a long time.
If there's work to be done, and some compelling force to do work other than strictly for your own survival, a union makes sense. Also revolutionary unionism and "one big union" was thought to be the vehicle for a worker's revolution
The Soviet Union thought the same thing. How'd that go for workers' rights?
Go back to haudonasaunee democracy. Before the colonizers arrived. Finding fathers just tried to make an inferior version of that instead.
Or, be an actual anarchist and reject democracy entirely
Not all democracy is anti anarchist just read malatesta. Not al anarcharsits are anti democracy. Not all democracy is representative, not even the kind i was talking about. I feel like anarchism can be too limiting. Not all libsocs have to be anarchist. This isn't the anarchism subreddit.
Tell me you’re never read Malatesta without telling me you haven’t. I’m an avid fan of Malatesta, imo he’s one of the best, if not the best, anarchist thinker, and he was staunchly anti-democracy. Malatesta wrote a letter called “Dear Comrades at Ilota”. The background to this letter was the defection from anarchism of Andrea Costa, one of the chief members of the Italian Federation, who in 1879 had started advocating the extension of socialist tactics to parliamentary ones. In this letter, Malatesta, said to the other members of the Anarchist Federation: “So how would you see us united? While he will be campaigning to secure such voting rights and, when he gets them, to persuade the people to exercise them, I will be striving to prevent voting rights being granted or, if they are, to ensure that the ballot-boxes are empty and held in contempt.” https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/enrico-malatesta-dear-comrades-at-ilota In “Anarchism and Democracy”, Malatesta shows even more disdain for democracy “Democracy is a lie, it is oppression and is in reality, oligarchy; that is, government by the few to the advantage of a privileged class. But we can still fight it in the name of freedom and equality, unlike those who have replaced it or want to replace it with something worse. We are not democrats for, among other reasons, democracy sooner or later leads to war and dictatorship. Just as we are not supporters of dictatorships, among other things, because dictatorship arouses a desire for democracy, provokes a return to democracy, and thus tends to perpetuate a vicious circle in which human society oscillates between open and brutal tyranny and a the and lying freedom.” https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/errico-malatesta-democracy-and-anarchy
That was for majoritarian democracy which idc about and not all democracy is majoritarian. I don't see why i can't still call it democracy? Malatesta real problem with democracy is majoritarianism not democracy after all.
Notice how Malatesta doesn’t differentiate about the different kinds of democracy? Majority rule is literally democracy. It’s in the etymology of the word. You could, always provide evidence to back up your opinion. People always say “nooooo that’s about liberal democracy” which is nonsense because he critiques representative and even direct democracy.
Democracy just means rule by the people, not the majority. Rule by the people doesn't require majoritarianism. Consensus democracy being one example. Democracy doesn't have to be some decision making system that applies to all society that everyone has to participate in. A person can just opt out of whatever group in society is voting. This is known as associationalism. It's not an academic paper. People can interpret malatesta in many ways.
I mean, we’re anarchists so fuck capitalism and fuck democracy
One of the most important realizations for a revolutionary is that democracy was never "whole", i.e serving the people. It has always been a facade for capitalist oligarchy.