Re: [Marxism] On HST, Nina, and Susie: My Response to Carlos

["Carlos A. Rivera" <cerejota@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Anthony J. Kennerson" <anthonyk_6319@xxxxxxxxxxx>

I am not going to reply everything point by point, because it is obvious you 
de-contextualized, and willfully ignored a lot of my post. I do answer some 
points specifically, and it will be unfortunatelly as long as yours, even a 
bit more.

And against my better instinct, I will indeed further abound in my previous 
post's points, in the vague hope you understand them this time.

I share your admiration for Nina. It should have been obvious from me 
comparing her to Michael Moore, and while I admire Goff more, in particular 
because he is indeed an open revolutionary communist (unlike Nina or Moore) 
and a concious traitor to what was basically his whole life (that takes a 
lot of bravery), I did state I disagree with many of his points.

In all you diatribe you seemed to willfully miss the point I tried to make. 
The point is not morality. The point is class struggle.

Nina and Goff are both at fault for failling to see this, I believe Nina 
willfuly so because she does not accept the class struggle, and Goff because 
there isn't any clear Marxist position on the issues, he is left with his 
ethical and moral background as guide, and maybe a little of "Second Wave" 
feminism to boot.

When you accuse me of trying to have it both ways, it is as close as you 
come to reality as you ever do:

I disagree with both Goff (and the bourgeoise/radical feminists) and Nina 
(and the whole "progressive" porn scenesters) in their view of "sex work", 
simply because they both view it as a moral problem in essence, they both 
concentrate on the "sex" part, while I, as communist, see myself 
concentrating more on the "work" part of the question.

If disagreeing with both sides makes me guilty of trying to have it both 
ways, I submit my admission of guilt...

I believe that the Bolsheviks reached the highest state of understanding sex 
as a civil right in their 1918 laws. That the contradictions that followed, 
and the ultra-leftist adventure of substituing laws for bulding 
conciousness, destroyed this example, doesn't make it less valid.

It is indeed a shame that communists world-wide, including Goff, refuse to 
accept to multiplicity and variety of human sexuality, and continue to 
reproduce an hetereo-sexist view on gender relations and patriarchy.

(Even bourgeoise feminists such as have been able to extensively write on 
how patriarchy affects men as well as women, and in the same way there is a 
faliure to recognize that hetereosexuality doesn't pre-determine gender 
attitudes. Some of the worse chauvinist pigs I have met are homosexual men.)

They, unlike what should be the revolutionary position in my opinion, don't 
see sex workers as the revolutionary vaguard's sexual section, as part of 
the proletariat and a part possesed with knowledge and experience that can 
be useful to the revolutionary workers movement, but simply as either 
helpless victims of patriarchy, or willing participants in its reproduction 
and oppression.

But this shame is a little one compared to the post-feminist's and 
"progressive" pornsters anti-solidarity, class-blindness, and sex-as-utopia 
first-worldism. Their position is one of privilege, of economic privilege, 
of political privelege and of gender privilege. Sometimes, it is even the 
privelege given by patriarchy to women who are considered attractive under 
its rules. Sure as hell I have met more post-feminists who would make "nice" 
Playboy centerfolds, and I have yet to meet an "ugly", working-class 
post-feminists. I have yet to find a post-feminist who is an 
anti-capitalist, regardless of class or specific sect or shiboleth.

A prositute in some dark and dank Bangok brothel giving blowjobs to rich 
Europeans is not having fun. She is doing quite literally a job, sometimes 
even under conditions that approach slavery, and do so under the continued 
neo-colonial explotation of the usual suspects. And those rich Europeans are 
not some kind sexual libertarians, but exploiters. And sex has very little 
to do with any of it, Nina and Goff aside.

Nina & Co paint a rosy picture, and present an idealist point of view, that 
bears no relation to reality as experienced by the immense majority of sex 
workers worldwide, including, I suspect, themselves. Goff & Co, in this 
respect, paint a moralistic picture, and present a moralistic point of view 
that has nothing to do with class struggle and even with the objective 
struggle against patriarchy; as the recognition of all human sexual 
practices as valid is one of the pre-conditions for the destruction of 
patriarchy.

Some of your quotes:

> Disingenuousness, Carlos??  Really???  Have you actually READ any of Nina's
> essays to various anthologies like "Sex Work" or "Whores and Other
> Feminists"

I have read most. I wouldn't have presumed to comment if I hadn't.

> or seen any one of her seminars??

Haven't had the privilege.

> Only those who would dismiss her craft and artform
> as innately "exploitive" and "degrading" would so dismiss her motives.

Well, I don't do either of those things, and I do dismiss her motives from a 
class perspective. At best she is a disingenious idealist liberal, which is 
not that bad, but it isn't revolutionary either, but at worse she is just 
another PT Barnum of the "progressive left" of the USA. I am not saying she 
is either of those, but probably lies somewhere in between.

> Nowhere does Nina ever claim that her personal experiences as a 
> professional
> sex performer are anything than her own, and nowhere does she ever dismiss
> the more negative experiences of others

The more I read and re-read your post, the more I became convinced you 
didn't read mine.

Let me repeat the specific quote from Nina I provided:

Mankiewicz: "Traci Lords says she's never met a happy porn star."
Nina Hartley: "Well, I would invite her to come have lunch with me."

It is indeed a short quote, but unmistakebly synthetises all I have ever 
understood from her writing, and furthermore a glaring contradiction to what 
you sustain. She is, in this very short answer, both claims that her 
personal experience is a generality and dismisses the negative experiences 
of others. So there you have it, proof that Nina Hartley has indeed, at

And I took the quote from a website that supports her, mind you.

If you could be so kind as to provide me with a single, direct quote that 
disproves this, then I will be less skeptical of Nina's motives.

She always dismisses all that "bad" things that happen in the sex industry 
as a result of "bad" individuals, not as part of an inevitable result of 
class and gender contradictions of the industry. She sounds like a 
social-democrat who says that salt mines are generally good, but some of the 
mines' bosses and supervisors are bad and spoil it.

For me this is a common sense thing. No industry, say, computers or sex, has 
any revolutionary transformative potential. It is the workers, and only the 
workers, regardless of industry, who have the potential to be revolutionary 
subjects.

Of course, since "the power of workers is in the workplace", the sex 
worker's barricade should be informed by sex and gender relations, just as 
the computer worker's barricade will be that of information and technology. 
But this is not what Nina argues. If we take your views as correct 
(something I am skeptical about), she argues human liberation via hardcore 
porn. A laughable notion to anyone who has half a brain.

In fact, my critique of Nina is analogous to my critique of the "Linux is 
Communism" types. They both mystify class relations as being rooted in modes 
of production, not in ownership of production, and by somehow arguing that 
exploitation is connected to how things are felt or distributed, and not how 
they are owned...


> because you disagree with her choice of profession doesn't
> make her less so.

Where did I say I disagree with her choice of profession?

I don't disagree with her profession at all. And even if I did disagree with 
it, I fail to see how that would be relevant.

> OK...so you think that a husband who responds to his wife being slammed and
> smeared as a virtual child-rapist, an apologist (if not an outright agent)
> to "sexual slavery", and a self-indulgent "adolescent" who promotes "hate
> speech" against women, is nothing more than "pathetic"???

Yes.

The fact that the reply was almost completely devoid of any politically 
significant content, and worse, that a man, no other than her husband, 
replies for her, as if she weren't able to defend herself and needed the 
help.

This would be understandable under other circumstances, but on a debate 
that deals specifically with gender, gender power relations and gender 
economics, this is a telling thing that leaves room not just to think of it 
as pathetic, but to question the argument that Nina is indeed a woman free 
of patriarchal chains.

It follows from orthodox marxism (e.g. Engels) that marriage is "private 
prostitution", that is, an economic arrangement informed by bourgeoise's 
society need to further commodify sex.

Greene is in fact morally supporting his position on an exploitative 
ownership relationship, and on patriarchy itself, even if he subjectively 
doesnt realize this. His relationship with Hartley should be irrelevant to a 
serious discussion, and his reply is doubly pathetic because of his use of 
this position.

He doesn't just stop at mentioning the fact that he is husband to her, but 
makes it the sole connecting thread of his whole reply.

If I wanted moral pontification, I would have joined the quakers. They are 
more tolerant of difference.

> Carlos, why not go right to the source..like
> the actual thread at Nina's forum where Greene made his remarks:
> http://nina.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=2664

I can live without the junkmail that would result from subscribing, but I 
would be interested in learning of any significant difference between what 
he said in there and what was published in the link I originaly provided.

If there is no difference, then this is a moot point, and a cheap digression 
at that.

> And considering that Goff's blast did not touch upon any other business
> other than the sex industry, it is kind of superfluous to go to the "all
> businesses are innately exploitative" card...especially since the main
> motive og Goff's essay is to indict, convict, and execute the sex iindusrty
> alone as the main source of "capitalist patriarchy" and its complete
> criminalization and abolition under socialism the only cure for its
> shortcomings.

You really didn't read anything I wrote, so my effort at clarification is 
obviously not completely wasted. I am not Stan Goff, nor did I here or in my 
original email state that I agreed with his views.

Quite the contrary, actually.

Of course, since you didn't read it, you don't know this. I do hope you read 
this time around.

> Funny, Carlos, that you say that you are against commodification of all
> things, but you focus your attention on explicit sexual expression (which 
> is
> what porn amounts to, in essence) as inheritantly "exploitative".  Can't
> have it both ways, my friend.

Again, I didn't say such a thing. I said that the sex industry was 
exploitative not because it dealt with sex, but because it was exploitative 
as an industry. Not in those exact words, but said it nevertheless.

> The appeal of sexually explicit material has less to do with
> "commodification" or with "capitalist patriarchy", than it has to do with
> the simple human emotion of sexual desire and enjoyment of mutual sexual
> pleasure amongst consenting adults

Take all I said about Nina & Co, and apply liberally to yourself.

You seem to confuse "sex", the culturally informed, biologically enabled, 
human activity, with "sex industry", which is the commodification of "sex". 
And so do Nina & Co. And hence instead of presenting a truly radical 
critique of sexual repression, and a truly liberating alternive, you reduce 
yourself to providing a less sexually oppresive, but no less commodified, 
"sex industry".

That is the problem with your (and their) analysis.

And you are not alone in being problematic, from my perspective:

The problem burgeoise feminists have is that they want to censor the "sex 
industry", without dealing with the pre-conditions that make it exist (i.e. 
class society), and hence are reactionary. The problem with radical feminism 
is that it deals with the "sex industry" as if it were an expression of 
patriarchy alone, and not an expression of the class society itself and 
hence are ultra-leftist.

In the final analysis, "free sex" (free in the sense of "freedom" not of 
"price") is not possible under capitalism, because a pre-condition for "free 
sex" has to be the destruction (not the censorship or illegality) of the 
"sex industry", and this is impossible under class society. And this doesn't 
only apply to the "sex industry", but to any industry. "Free food" is also 
not possible under class society.

There is something of truth in your otherwise incorrect position: because of 
the specific product and the demand for it, there will be "sex industry" 
under any form of class society, even under Socialism. There is no wonder 
they call prostitution the world's oldest profession, "sex" is also the 
world's oldest commodity.

> To conclude this:  I have no quarry to anyone who wants to criticize
> misogyny in our culture overall; the sex industry certainly has its share 
> of
> it and is certainly should be held accountable for its part.  But Nina
> Hartley and Susie Bright are people who are attempting in their own way as
> sex radical activists of the Left to reverse that trend; to condemn them
> rather than those who directly perpetuate the abuse is not only morally
> wrong, but a direct sellout to the Right, who are already using a great 
> deal
> of antiporn rhetoric as a wedge to condemn ALL forms of sexual expression
> not deemed suitable for their narrow standards.

We completely agree on this. But I fail to see where did I condem Nina and 
Susie for fighting against censorship. I did criticize their positions from 
a class perspective, something they lack.

> If you don't happen to like
> what they do with their bodies, then that's fine..but please, for
> Aphrodite's sake, please give them their credit and respect as progressive
> and Leftist activists.  They deserve that much.

Again, where in my post I don't do that? Do respecting them as as 
progressive and Leftist activists means I have to shut up and accept 
whatever they say as gospel? Does it mean I shouldn't be critical with what 
I disagree with them?

I learned in Party school that criticism is the deepest form of solidarity. 
I know this gets lost as dogmatic dribble in most organizations of the 
Maoist/anti-revisionist tradition, but I did take it to heart. That I am 
even willing to engage Nina & Co. in debate and criticism from a serious 
perspectives, and recognize them as being worthy of discussion should be 
proof enough of a respectful disagreement for their work.

That this was not obvious to you simply means that you are not willing to 
respect me as progressive and Leftist activist. Unlike you, I am not 
offended at this.

I do find it rather amusing that you ask for what you are not willing to 
give.

And needless to say, I lack any such respect I had for you after your 
hilariously clueless reply. Your answer is as pathetic and as ad hominem as 
Greene's. The worse part is that I willing let you drag down me to those 
depths with you. C'est la vie...

Treason to gender is loyalty to humanity (even if am still hetereosexual);

sks

long ps

And not that it is that relevant, and even if you didn't get the hint (what 
kind of anti-sex guy gets himself an erotic dancer as an ex-partner and 
friend???), but my sexuality is not a standard sexuality, and my sole moral 
criteria about sex is that it should be between consenting adults.

Anything goes in my view, including what Goff (and bourgeoise and radical 
feminists) describe as perverted. I am going to be blunt, I know feminist, 
revolutionary, women who enjoy having men come on their faces, and others 
who find it absolutely repugnant. I have considered involving myself in the 
sex business (as I am a skilled rope bondage practioner), but computers are 
a bit less alienating for me, even if I don't make as much (althought I 
might consider a tempting offer). Goff is way of mark on this, and I grant 
you that.

But morality is not the issue I raise, and you don't seem to understand it 
or want to understand it. It is class, class struggle, and economic 
exploitation. Disagree with my views, but not even for a second try to 
misrepresent them or form an idea of what they are that is not real.

The ironic thing is we share views on sex that are probably closer together 
than mine are to Goff's!!!

Difference is you seem to buy the talk. I don't. I full well know my pet 
fetishisms are a cultural creation of bourgeoise society, patriarchy and 
capitalism, and that instead of being liberated by them, I am enslaved (and 
not in a fun way). And I take a rather private view on them, very seldomly 
making an issue of it (unlike other parts of my emprical experience).

A song I fully agree with:

"Embajadora del sexo"
(Frank Delgado, cuban anti-gusano dissident Nueva Trova singer-songwriter, 
my bad translation below)

Embajadora del sexo,
funcionaria del deseo.
De día estudias inglés
y por las noches te veo.

Escarnecida en historias
como burda Mesalina
pero envidian tu aventura
de ser puta clandestina.

Que no paga al sindicato,
ni a chulos, ni a pretendientes.
Por esa parte te digo,
son putas independientes.

Que utilizan la avenida
sin tener que pagar nada.
Por esa parte te digo,
son putas privilegiadas.

Si dejan siempre a su paso
un rosario de opiniones
al menos son más rentables
que algunas instituciones.

Como dice Jorge Amado,
hermanas prostibularias,
tengan conciencia de clase,
sean putas proletarias.

No dejen que un extranjero
mancille tu mercancía,
unifiquen la tarifa,
no cedan la plusvalía.

Pero no vengas con dramas
de que eres puta por hambre
di mejor que es buen negocio,
o lo llevas en la sangre.

Yo quisiera estar contigo,
aunque sea un día de fiesta
pero lo bueno de Cuba
siempre algo verde te cuesta.

Nunca te vendas barato,
trabaja con calidad.
No sé si es una utopía
ser puta con dignidad.

Embajadora del sexo, funcionaria del deseo.

Trabajan duro, van por dinero, te cobran algo
y hacen lo suyo, sin protocolo, sin papeleo.

Y a veces frías, para restarle categoría
al reino de la alegría

Jurisconsultas, jurisprudentes, hay veteranas
y hay disidentes, qué gentes.

Canciller de la alegría y cónsules del recreo.
Qué veo, qué veo.

De día estudias inglés,
y por las noches te veo en el malecón.

---

"Sex's Ambassador"

(deleted the last part, it is a descarga - stream of conciousness singing - 
and too hard to translate to make sense)

Sex's Ambassador
Desire's functionary.
at day you study English
and at night I see you...

vilified by the gossips
as a rougue Messalina
but they envy your adventure
of being a clandestine whore

they neither pay for union dues,
nor to pimps or to pretenders
in that sense I tell you,
they are independent whores

They use the avenues
without having to pay
in that sense I tell you,
they are privileged whores

If they leave behind
a trail of opinion
they are at least more profitable
than some of our institutions

[a pun, "instituciones" in Spanish can mean persons, not only 
"organizations". Obviously refers to both]

Like Jorge Amado said,
our whorish sisters,
have class conciousness,
be proletarian whores.

Don't let the foreigner
taint your merchandise
unify the rates,
don't cede your surplus value

But don't come to me with dramas
that you are a whore for food
better say its good business
or that you have it in your blood

I would like to be with you,
even on a holiday
but the good thing about Cuba
is that something green always cost you.

[another pun in Spanish, "verde" can mean "green", "lusty" or "money".]

Never undersell yourself,
do high-quality work.
I don't know if its utopic,
but be a whore with dignity.

Sex's Ambassador, Desire's functionary.



_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism