Prostitution and Communism

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ned
Che, so you suggest the average woman, between 13 and 23, would volunteer to perform sex services for men?

Ned, you really has to tell the name of that mushroom you are (ab)using.

Not even ID/creationists are able to make such senseless and illogic iconclusions.

[Kidlicious]

This is why I'm not participating in this thread.

[JohnT]

Why does Che hate my wife, the stay at home mother?

[Kuciwalker]

Because he's a commie and therefore gay and therefore trying to destroy the families of America one by one.

[Ned]

Well, Che, the demand for sex will not go away unless the future commie is also neutered in some way. So, who will fill that demand?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by JohnT
Right in the middle of two bolded points:

All women who avoid work and do not take part in production or in caring for children are liable, on the same basis as prostitutes, to be forced to work.

Workers of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains!

"Now wrap these... no, not "chains": you're mistaken, silly - this is the society of the worker... now wrap these "metal rings" around your ankles... ahh, that's it. Ready to go to work?"

Of course, they would have already starved to death in a capitalistic society, so there wouldn't be any problems at all in this regard.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by JohnT
Why does Che hate my wife, the stay at home mother?

Is she neglecting your precious?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ned
Well, Che, the demand for sex will not go away unless the future commie is also neutered in some way. So, who will fill that demand?

Try masturbation.

[aneeshm]

Doesn't prostution inherently deny communism ? The means of production of wealth ( in this case , the woman's body and skills ) are inseperable from its owner , and thus , because they cannot be communalised , communism fails in this area .

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Doesn't prostution inherently deny communism ? The means of production of wealth ( in this case , the woman's body and skills ) are inseperable from its owner , and thus , because they cannot be communalised , communism fails in this area .

That's not what "means of production" is.

[aneeshm]

UR's reply has to be the most classic ever . . . .



Though another to the fact that on a forum for Civilisation , we can seriously debate the relationship between communism and prostitution .

[JohnT]

One would hope they'd chose to develop themselves more fully, taking advantage of neighborhood or workplace based creches, however.

Now, this is the sort of ignorant comment that pisses me off:

1. The purpose of parenthood is to develop the child.
2. This is such a time-consuming and exhausting task that only those without children can assume that one can just blithely "chose to develop themselves" - and has the time and energy to do it.
3. Learning about children and how to deal with them requires a great deal of development as one changes from a self-centered shmuck to a person concerned more about others.
4. Neighborhood "creches." Makes taking care of 10 0-5 year-olds sound as peaceful and as easy as tending a garden. "Creches."

And comments like this just fly in the face of reality:

It may be more inefficient from a time and motion perspective to have everyone do it rather than have someone "specialize" in it, but is it really right to waste human potential specializing in collecting garbage?

So you want Godel, Escher, Bach, et al to become generalists, good at a lot of things but great in none? You think it's more of a waste of human potential to have people "specialize" in any endeavor (including the removal of waste) than to insist that nobody specialize at all - regardless of your aptitude in other fields? Rather than having a brilliant mathematician who does math and only math, you'd prefer a "pretty-good" mathematician who is spending much of his intellectual capacity removing trash, being a traffic cop, and whatever "menial" job you think is unworthy of "human potential?"

No wonder Communism is a theology of the workers and peasants - only people as ignorant as peasants can fall for such crapola... except for those who like to build intellectual castles with foundations made of sand.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Of course, they would have already starved to death in a capitalistic society, so there wouldn't be any problems at all in this regard.

Really? Cite on the number of starving people in capitalist societies?

Or are you going to waste my time by counterarguing that "today's societies aren't capitalistic, that the expansion of the welfare state, blah blah blah. I'm talking in theory."

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Doesn't prostution inherently deny communism ? The means of production of wealth ( in this case , the woman's body and skills ) are inseperable from its owner , and thus , because they cannot be communalised , communism fails in this area .

Troll? Or do you really misunderstand the concept so badly?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by JohnT
No wonder Communism is a theology of the workers and peasants - only people as ignorant as peasants can fall for such crapola... except for those who like to build intellectual castles with foundations made of sand.

Communism is the society of plenty. Capitlalism is the society of underproduction, and undertraining.