this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2024
172 points (90.6% liked)
Asklemmy
44182 readers
1952 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Sex work is work, and work (tying your capacity for labor to your continued survival) is bad. Sex workers should be supported like any member of the proletariat
Sex labor on the other hand? Sure as long as you have removed the exploitive element that comes with work.
Can you elaborate on the work vs labor dichotomy?
Iβm not familiar with the concept, especially because in my language the two would be almost exact synonyms in this context (unless you are Hercules or what not). And Latin languages just get the one.
Labor is when you do a thing that has value to society.
Work is like, a job, where you do labor (or not) and that pays you so that you can spend money to sustain your existence. If you get disabled you can be fired and not have money long term to continue existing.
People, ironically enough, are more efficient laborers when they aren't doing it in the trappings of work, so there isn't any reason for work to exist.
Are you the only person using that definition?
Because traditionally English speaking Marxists use them the other way around, as far as I remember, (work is useful, produces use value, labor is economic, produces economic value) if they make that distinction at all.
See for example:
https://www.triple-c.at/index.php/tripleC/article/download/546/598#:~:text=In%20the%20Marxist%20tradition%2C%20the,(Fuchs%20and%20Sevignani%202013).
(Posted without endorsement)
EDIT
Apparently the English edition includes a footnote by Friedrich Engels:
Which reads very much like you are using them wrong.
They are not the only person who uses the words for each other. When I was doing my undergrad I found that myself and my fellow students used them pretty loosely goosey. As a native English speaker I've never had any difficulty telling which way a speaker intended labor and work to mean. The context provided enough. I can see how for people who are not native English speakers, but this isn't an academic institution. In casual conversation either or are appropriate.
This isn't in the context of utility value vs exchange value. This is separating value creation from the mode of production. Work as in workplace not work as in physical process
Be that as it may, your ad hoc definition in your first comment was spurious and finds no basis in English language Marxist literature.
Can you phrase this as constructive criticism for which are the proper words to use in this seperate use case or do I need to refer you to the constructive criticism handbook?
Also, establishing working definitions for use in casual conversation is a thing. Please note that I established definitions for their use.