Prostitution and Communism

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


My question is why does it have to be "acceptable" and to whom? Why shouldn't Mrs Flubber NOT work all if that is here wish and the family unit is willing to get by with less resources?

Why should she have to pay taxes? Because everyone has to pay taxes. That was decided through the political process. The same would be true for work requirements.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Why should she have to pay taxes? Because everyone has to pay taxes.

Thats not quite true. If she doesn't work, she will pay no taxes

Originally posted by Kidicious


That was decided through the political process. The same would be true for work requirements.

Very very different in scope and almost impossible to enforce a work requirement. It sounds to me like you want to enforce a type of slavery where people have to work where the state tells them . So will the police drag her to her post or will we just be jailed?

Whenever I hear you expound on the post-revolution workforce, I just shudder.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
Very very different in scope and almost impossible to enforce a work requirement. It sounds to me like you want to enforce a type of slavery where people have to work where the state tells them . So will the police drag her to her post or will we just be jailed?

If your family wanted to try and get by with only your wages I suppose that she wouldn't be forced to work, but probably would want to, because it would be easier to make ends meet and have some more money for vacation etc..

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


If your family wanted to try and get by with only your wages I suppose that she wouldn't be forced to work, but probably would want to, because it would be easier to make ends meet and have some more money for vacation etc..

Quite a reversal from your previous statements.


All true but thats an economic CHOICE. people may feel some economic pressures that influence them but in the end its up to them. With us My wife works part time-- My sister . . . its reversed and hubby works part time. Other couples choose dual income and use daycare or have a stay at home parent. They always face the economic factors you cite and different people make different decisions.

I like freedom and choice

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


Quite a reversal from your previous statements.


All true but thats an economic CHOICE. people may feel some economic pressures that influence them but in the end its up to them. With us My wife works part time-- My sister . . . its reversed and hubby works part time. Other couples choose dual income and use daycare or have a stay at home parent. They always face the economic factors you cite and different people make different decisions.

I like freedom and choice

It comes down to the difference in the way that the two of us see "choice" and "force." I assert that people who have to do things in order to survive have no choice to do otherwise. That's why I was saying that both parents would have to work, because they might not be able to survive on one income.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


It comes down to the difference in the way that the two of us see "choice" and "force." I assert that people who have to do things in order to survive have no choice to do otherwise. That's why I was saying that both parents would have to work, because they might not be able to survive on one income.

We always come down to that distinction. I just don't see much "force" in a capitalist society like Canada. Yes a family unit must earn sufficient income but its totally up to them in hoe they do that ( within certain legal boundaries)

Also you continue to use the term "survive" like working is a life or death choice. Its not. No one in Canada should EVER starve to death as there are ample social programs to keep people fed. If people are truly hungry it is less a function of capitalism and more a function of people not availing themselves of available resources OR (the most tragic case) parents that fritter away their income/ resources without caring for their children properly.

I don't see the element of "force " being any different now than it was in caveman days. The family unit must perform certain tasks in order to garner needed resources. ( Current capitalism with social safety nets is actually much more forgiving)

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
Also you continue to use the term "survive" like working is a life or death choice. Its not. No one in Canada should EVER starve to death as there are ample social programs to keep people fed. If people are truly hungry it is less a function of capitalism and more a function of people not availing themselves of available resources OR (the most tragic case) parents that fritter away their income/ resources without caring for their children properly.

It's different here in the US. You have to look for work in order to get welfare or unemployment, and not everyone can get those.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Flubber
Also you continue to use the term "survive" like working is a life or death choice. Its not. No one in Canada

Canada and the U.S. are two very different societies, boss. Working is a life or death choice here.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Well, if there are no prostitutes and no strippers and no porn and sex is for "romantic" love only, as a woman wants it, then the future communism is not a happy place for men.

Not for sexist, misogynist men, no. Of course, with religion "abolished" women won't be as ashamed of wanting sex as they are in our society.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Canada and the U.S. are two very different societies, boss. Working is a life or death choice here.

well BOSS ( are you still a little on edge after your confrontation) . . . people shouldn't assume that capitalism MUST be on the US model. There are softer versions with better social security out there.

I point out the Canadian experience since capitalism doesn't have to be as harsh as it sounds in the US

[Flubber]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Not for sexist, misogynist men, no. Of course, with religion "abolished" women won't be as ashamed of wanting sex as they are in our society.

Think of the Chinese- what will a generation of men in China do without potential life partners ??

I do agree that more liberated women would be nice

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Flubber
My question is why does it have to be "acceptable" and to whom? Why shouldn't Mrs Flubber NOT work all if that is here wish and the family unit is willing to get by with less resources?

Yes! No one should have to work if they don't
t want to work. That is one of the goals of communism the right to be lazy. Of course, no one is saying that house work isn't hard work.

You have to remember that these arguments are from a time when #1, wives were the property of their husbands, #2, they had to clean and raise children and could not work or get educated, #3 they lived in a society that had been wrecked by years of invasion and civil war, and it was everyone's duty to help build and rebuild Russia.

If I might make a suggestion, I think rather than simply having one housewife/househusband doing all the work in one house, that there could be teams of wives/husbands working together to clean multiple houses. Staying at home by yourself is a rather isolating and stunting experience, which is one of the reasons that depression is so prevalent among housewives and stay at home moms. Humans need social contact with their peers, and no matter how much you love your kids, they are not a substitute for social interaction.

So stay at home folks could do the chores and child rearing together.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Flubber
well BOSS ( are you still a little on edge after your confrontation)

Yes, but I was being flip, though I was using boss in the friendly meaning, not the literal meaning. Colloquially it can mean friend, which is how I meant it.

. . . people shouldn't assume that capitalism MUST be on the US model. There are softer versions with better social security out there.

I point out the Canadian experience since capitalism doesn't have to be as harsh as it sounds in the US

Yes, but the neo-liberal model is on the march across the globe. Even in societies which are the extreme models of humane capitalism, the welfare state is on the retreat. Look at the attacks on your health care system. Only a vigilant and militant social movement can defend your victories, because capital is relentless in seaking out opportunites for profit.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Flubber
Think of the Chinese- what will a generation of men in China do without potential life partners ??

Masturbate?

[Dis]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Masturbate?

I've always heard you can go insanse without sexual contact. Is this true? It would explain the catholic priests.