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.
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 the Marxist tradition%2C the,(Fuchs and Sevignani 2013).
(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.