• Commiunism@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    4 hours ago

    If you had read marx, you’d know that those are categories that show one’s relation to means of production. For instance, an artisan isn’t automatically a petite bourgeois or proletariat, it depends on if they own their MOP they work with.

    The few sex workers privileged/lucky enough to be relatively independent on onlyfans or other sites are petit bourgeois, those who work in countries where sex work is legalized and is essentially a day job for wage are proletarian, and those who do it illegally, likely under a pimp (who is also lumpen) and/or gangs, essentially being their asset is lumpenproletariat.

    The lumpen prostitute was pretty much the only type back then, and them + other lumpens such as thieves and thugs were actually mobilized by reactionaries to coup the French government (18th Brumaire) during Marx’s time, thus the analysis that, again, they could be mobilized by reaction.

    • SomeLemmyUser@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Yeah, and he clearly states they are misled into being reactionary because obviously its in their material interest to abolish the private ownership of production, as they suffer the most from it.

      Anyone can be bribed Into actions which are against his class interest, but because the lumpenproletariat is so poor and desperate, the cost of bribing them is much lower and therefore the risk of them being bribed in relevant numbers into being reactionary much greater