----------
> From: Robert G Goodby <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [CHOMSKY] Prostitution and workers.....
> Date: Monday, August 18, 1997 12:13 PM
>
> On Mon, 18 Aug 1997, Karl Carlile wrote:
>
> > >From Karl Carlile:
> >
<snip>
> > By contrast the prostitute sells his/her body, as opposed to labour
> > power, as a commodity on the exchange market. This means that s/he
> > sells her/his body piece meal over a sustained period. Her/his body is
> > the commodity. The purchaser of her/his body relates to it as a
> > commodity. In this sense s/he is a simple commodity producer: an
> > independent commodity producer. This means that the class character of
> > the prostitute is petty bourgeois rather than working class.
>
> I'm afraid this form of strict Marxist analysis leaves me a bit cold. And
> again, I think it's difficult to generalize......
<snip>
> Let me get this straight. When I purchase sex from a prostitute, who more
> often than not is driven to this profession by desperate poverty,
physical
> coercion, addiction, or some combination of these than I'm not being
> exploitative, just because I might be a "worker"? It would seem to me
that
> I'm clearly taking advantage of another's misery for my own pleasure.
> Perhaps that's not how exploitation is defined in Capital, but I don't
> take that as my bible.
>
> I don't think we can analyze this in a cultural or social vacuum. To
> really understand what's exploitative about this relationship, we need to
> look at it in some sort of context. What are the social values attached
to
> such behavior? What are the circumstances that lead people to enter this
> profession? How are their lives affected by their status as prostitutes?
> What about child prostitutes?
>
> In my limited exposure to prostitution (no, not as a participant--a
> thousand times worse, I think, than using another's toothbrush) I can't
> escape the evident misery of those trapped in this occupation.
> Prostitution is nearly universally associated with violence, substance
> abuse, and (increasingly) the spread of STDs, most notably AIDS. Very few
> who are in this profession would be there, I suspect, in the absence of
> economic desperation, physical coercion, or addiction. Nor can the
> different cultural values assigned to the wage worker and the prostitute
> be dismissed as irrelevant--these values are central to the degradation
> experienced by prostitutes. It's an interesting academic argument to ask
> what the real differences are, but.....
>
> Chomsky, I think, argues that in the absence of any genuine scientific
> theory of human behavior we need to evaluate actions in a moral
framework.
> I see no evidence of such a framework in this analysis, and as such it
> seems to be an extension of the universal "market values" promoted by the
> owners of capital in the modern economy. As such, it is equally
supportive
> of the interests of pimps and the masters of transnational capital......


No, no, no, no! First, I take issue with your depiction of this (I agree
here) abstraction to the absurd as being Marxist. Second, I think that the
sly reference to "Capital" is rather uninformed, and, in any event,
inappropriate in this context. Third, although I can appreciate the "need
to evaluate...in a moral framework", while not entirely sure of exactly
what that means, NO morality will suffice in the absence of clear analysis
of the situation.

If you really wish to apply a Marxist analysis to the problem, I suggest
looking at the definition of terms first. In a literal sense, no prostitute
sells off pieces of her/his body...although perhaps some organ "donors" may
find themselves in this position over time. It is a "service" that is being
exchanged. That the terms of the agreement are slanted heavily in favor of
everyone else (from "john" to pimp to local P.D. and municipal court)
against the prostitute merely serves to further illustrate the real
relations involved. While it may be rhetorically useful to say that people
are commodified, by prostitution or any other means of exploitation , it is
not an entirely accurate statement of legal, political or economic fact.
Chattel slavery is literal human commodification; other types of
exploitation, though perhaps resulting in equally disastrous outcomes, are
not commodification under legal or political standards, by definition. I
believe that, except perhaps metaphorically, most or all would fail the
eceonomic test as well.

DDeBar