Benjamin Weil’s article, despite its focus on inequality, precarity, and platform economy hierarchies, remains firmly within the realm of bourgeois reformism. Its goal is the ongoing survival of capitalism, presented more benignly with an “inclusive” regulatory approach. Using the language of solidarity and rights, Weil’s suggestions essentially amount to requesting that the capitalist state better oversee the exploitation it already oversees.[1]
To grasp why this framework remains politically sterile, it
is essential to start from the Marxist view that the commodification of human
intimacy is not an anomaly but a fundamental aspect of capitalist social
relations.
The Commodification of Intimacy: A Product of Capitalist
Social Relations
The article’s core slogan—“sex work is work”—is viewed as a
political goal, meant to be recognised through legislation and state support.
However, while this view helps defend against criminalisation, it hides a
deeper truth: under capitalism, all things are transformed into work because
they become commodities. The real question isn’t whether selling sexual
services counts as "work," but rather the social system that forces
people to sell their bodies, time, emotions, and innermost abilities to get by.
Marx and Engels vividly outlined this dynamic. In The
Communist Manifesto, the authors argue that the bourgeoisie has reduced human
relationships to self-interest and monetary exchange, converting all human
worth into “exchange value.” The rise of OnlyFans does not signal a democratisation
of pornography. Still, it continues this logic into the most personal areas of
life, driven by algorithms, payment systems, and the global economy. The
platform economy doesn't free people; it monetises their activities. It doesn't
give power; it extracts it. It doesn't promote democracy; it creates
stratification.
The Pseudo‑Left’s Framework: Reform Without Revolution
Benjamin Weil accurately points out the incoherence of the
“sex worker” label and the absurd spectacle of celebrities using the slogan for
their own branding. However, his proposed solution — “solidarity from top to
bottom” and “permanent protections” provided by the capitalist state — leads to
a political dead end.
The capitalist state does not serve as a neutral protector
of rights; instead, it functions as a tool for class domination. Its laws—such
as FOSTA-SESTA and the Earn It Act—have repeatedly increased efforts to criminalise,
monitor, and marginalise sex workers. Asking this state for protection is like
requesting the arsonist to control the fire.
This represents the typical approach of identity-based
reformism: recognising a genuine social harm and attempting to fix it within
the existing system that causes it. It struggles to conceive of a world beyond
capitalism and advocates only for kinder management of capitalist exploitation.
What the Article Cannot Theorise: Inequality as a
Structural Feature, Not a Distortion
The article criticises how earnings are concentrated among
the top 1 per cent of creators, highlights the racial biases embedded in
platform algorithms, and discusses the gap between celebrity “sex workers” and
those pushed into online sexual labour out of economic necessity. However, it
views these issues as distortions within an otherwise legitimate industry.
This is a significant misconception. These inequalities are
not exceptions but rather the usual operation of capitalism. The gig
economy—exemplified by OnlyFans—is capitalism in its most current and pure
form: removing employer responsibilities, fragmenting workers, and transferring
all risks to individuals.
David Walsh’s analysis of singer Kate Nash’s shift to
OnlyFans highlights a broader social issue: a society that marginalises its
artists, pushing them into pornography out of shame and neglect. This also
reflects the millions who, during the pandemic, turned to online sexual
work—not because they felt empowered, but because capitalism provided no
alternative for their survival.
The pseudo-left uses terms like “agency,” “choice,” and
“bodily autonomy” to mask underlying coercion. It presents economic pressure as
a form of self-expression.
The “Sex‑Positive” Industry: A Pseudo‑Left Apologia for
Capitalist Degradation
Today, few ideological groups are as reactionary yet as
skillfully marketed as the NGO and academic “sex-positive" industry labelled
as "progressive." Operating under the guise of empowerment, autonomy,
and liberation, this scene acts as a political cleanser: it disguises
capitalist exploitation as a colourful array of “choices." This sector
serves as the ideological extension of a large commercial system that gains
from turning intimacy into a commodity, fragmenting social life, and capitalising
on the desperation of millions.
Rather than contesting the social pressures that force
people to commodify their bodies, the sex-positive industry instead celebrates
this tendency as a form of self-expression. It serves as an ideal ideological
partner to a system that has turned every aspect of human capability—physical,
emotional, and sexual—into a marketable good.
The Ideological Function of “Sex Positivity”
The sex-positive framework didn't arise as a bold critique
of capitalist morality. Instead, it functions as a market-friendly rebrand of
sexual commodification. Its main principles — “agency,” “choice,” and
"empowerment” — are directly borrowed from neoliberal ideology. These same
ideas are applied to defend zero-hour contracts, gig-economy insecurity, and
the reduction of social protections.
When NGOs, academics, and media personalities promote
"sex positivity," it often comes across as a moral obligation: people
are expected to embrace the commodification of intimacy, or else be labelled
prudish, conservative, or "anti-sex," which is a severe criticism in
this context. This does not represent true liberation. Instead, it acts as a
form of censorship against dissent, all in the interest of capitalism.
The NGO‑Academic Complex: A New Clerisy of Capitalist
Morality
The sex-positive industry depends on a complex network of
NGOs, foundations, university departments, and media outlets. Their funding
comes from sources like corporate philanthropy, tech companies, and
state-aligned foundations, underscoring their class affiliation. Instead of
opposing capitalism, they act as its ideological subcontractors.
These institutions primarily perform three roles: They depoliticise
exploitation by presenting sexual commodification as just another form of
'work,' thereby concealing the underlying coercive structures that force
millions into it. They individualise systemic issues by framing poverty,
unemployment, and social neglect as personal “choices” that lead to entry into
the industry. Additionally, they lend moral legitimacy to capitalist platforms,
with companies like OnlyFans and Pornhub described as “empowering tools'
instead of profit-driven entities that benefit from human desperation. This
creates an ideological framework that turns capitalist exploitation into a
lifestyle brand.
The Academic Wing: Postmodern Apologetics for
Exploitation
Scholars supporting the sex-positive industry—mainly from
gender studies and postmodern theory—have developed a language that obscures
exploitation. Their terminology mixes Foucauldian micro-politics,
intersectional terms, and neoliberal voluntarism. For example: coercion is
called “choice,” economic desperation is labelled “agency,” alienation is
described as “self-expression,” and platform exploitation is termed
“entrepreneurship.” This is not genuine scholarship but ideological
obscuration.
These scholars view the capitalist market as a neutral space
where people negotiate meaning, identity, and pleasure. They are unable to
imagine social relations beyond the commodity form because their entire
theoretical framework rests on rejecting the concept of class.
NGOs and the Business of “Empowerment”
The NGO sector has realised that promoting "sex
positivity” is a profitable brand. They offer numerous workshops, conferences,
“empowerment” seminars, and consulting services. Although they claim to
"support sex workers," their true role is to divert discontent from
class struggle, focusing instead on seeking state recognition, regulatory
changes, and philanthropic funding. Their political outlook is rooted in
sustaining capitalism, masked with an inclusive, rainbow-colored image. Rather
than fighting exploitation, they tend to manage it.
The Pseudo‑Left’s Role: Sanitising the Market
The pseudo-left, which includes the DSA-influenced scene in
the US, the NGO-Labourist groups in Britain, and similar organisations
worldwide, has fervently embraced sex-positive ideology. This change is
deliberate. These groups have abandoned their socialist roots and now prioritise
lifestyle, identity, and personal expression over the goal of dismantling
capitalist property systems.
For these individuals, turning intimacy into a commodity
isn’t seen as a social tragedy but as a form of “resistance.” They praise the
entrepreneurial “creativity” of OnlyFans creators, ignoring broader problems
like unemployment, declining wages, and weak social safety nets that push
people toward these platforms. Their viewpoint promotes recognising,
regulating, and even celebrating exploitation instead of eliminating it.
What the Sex‑Positive Industry Cannot Admit
The sex-positive movement often overlooks the essential fact
that prostitution, pornography, and the commercialisation of intimacy are
rooted in a class society. Engels showed that these issues emerge alongside
private property and the oppression of women. They are not timeless, natural,
or solely expressions of freedom; rather, they are manifestations of
alienation.
Accepting this would mean recognising that true liberation
depends on dismantling capitalism, which would immediately cut the sex-positive
industry off from its sources of funding, institutional backing, and
ideological roots. Therefore, they hold on to the illusion that the market can
be made more humane, that exploitation can serve as a form of empowerment, and
that commodification can lead to liberation.
The Marxist Position: Abolition, Not Celebration
Marxists oppose the core idea of the sex-positive industry:
that turning intimacy into a commodity aligns with human freedom. Their goal
isn’t to sanitise or destigmatise exploitation but to eliminate the social
relations that enable it.
A socialist society, characterised by collective ownership
and democratic control of the means of production, would remove the economic
pressures that push people into commodified sexual labour. It would establish
the material basis for truly free human relationships, free from monetary
influence. The sex-positive industry struggles to envision such a society.
Marxists are actively working to create it.
Conclusion: The Pseudo‑Left’s Moral Bankruptcy
The NGO-academic sex-positive industry does not truly
promote liberation. Instead, it acts as a complex ideological tool that
justifies capitalist exploitation by masquerading as empowerment. Its role is
to persuade individuals to accept their own degradation, turning structural
coercion into a matter of personal choice, and to frame the commodification of
intimacy as a victory for autonomy.
Marxists oppose this reactionary politics by advocating for
the struggle for socialism, which is the only way to create a society where
people no longer have to sell their bodies, emotions, or intimacy to get by.
The Historical Materialist Perspective: Prostitution as a
Product of Class Society
Engels, in The Origin of the Family, Private Property and
the State, argued that prostitution and the sexual double standard are not
innate aspects of human existence but are shaped by class society —
particularly the monogamous family structure that emerged alongside private
property. The commercialisation of sexuality is inherently linked to the
broader commodification of labour.
Viewing sex work as a fixed, natural category means
abandoning the perspective of historical materialism. Alternatively, seeing it
as a legitimate industry in need of improved regulation implies accepting the
enduring nature of capitalist social relations.
The Real Solution: Abolition, Not Sanitisation
The working class cannot attain liberation by simply
regulating how their bodies are commodified. The fight is not just for a “safe
home to sell” sexual services, but for a society where nobody is forced to sell
intimate access to their body.
This calls for more than just legislative change; it
necessitates dismantling the capitalist system that equates all human
interactions with exchange value. A socialist overhaul — including ending
private ownership of production means and empowering the working class with
democratic control over the economy — is essential for ending prostitution and
the commercialisation of intimacy. Only in such a society can human
relationships be freed from the cash nexus and reconstituted based on equality,
solidarity, and genuine freedom.
The article’s call to “instate the obvious” flips reality.
What needs to be established is not just acknowledging that “sex work is work,”
but realising that a society based on the commodification of everything —
including human intimacy — should be dismantled. Reform efforts cannot resolve
capitalism’s contradictions; they can only contain them. Marxists’ role is not
to humanise exploitation but to eliminate it.
[1] Sex
Work is (Gig) Work: Assessing the OnlyFans effect: Benjamin Weil
The Baffler,
MAY-JUN 2022, No. 63 (MAY-JUN 2022), pp. 78-86
