Asklemmy

43733 readers

1270 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

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
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

170

Do you approve sex work? Why or why not? (lemmy.world)

submitted 2 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

162 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/18475086

I'm not against those who work for sex, but the idea to earn for a living doesn't seem nice. IMO, sex should be for 2 people (or more for others who prefer polyamory) who wants to be intimate/romantic with each other. My point is money should not be the purpose.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

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:

As has been stated in a previous note, the English language has two different expressions for these two different aspects of labour: in the Simple Labour-process, the process of producing Use-Values, it is *Work; *in the process of creation of Value, it is *Labour, *taking the term in its strictly economic sense. — F. E.

Which reads very much like you are using them wrong.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Be that as it may, your ad hoc definition in your first comment was spurious and finds no basis in English language Marxist literature.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

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.