cross-posted from: https://piefed.blahaj.zone/c/onehundredninetysix/p/449273/food-is-literally-rule
Food is literally rule
Edit: Could you please chill it with the taking everything so bloody seriously? It’s low-hanging fruit leftist agitprop from c/196. It doesn’t aim to be coherent with the very letter of Marx or whatever leftist group/cult-leader you prefer.
A lot of food actually is free. The commons supported a lot of people in the middle ages with nuts, berries and orchards.
The point was that private property is what creates the drudge.
If it requires labour, it’s not free.
My dude, have you ever tried to grow food in a garden, or forage enough for a meal? It’s extremely hard work. You could argue that those who work the land deserve to own the means of their produce, but you can’t claim food is free.
You’re right. It should be free, though. (As in free beer)
I’m not even sure if it should be “free”. Something that is inherently free implies a lack of value, it’s belittling to the workers who produce that food.
I think a better way to phrase it is that society should work together to provide the basic needs to those who participate in said society.
That’s the bourgeois ideology talking. If I invite friends to dinner, they receive the food for free, but they sure don’t think it’s worthless.
So guests should go hungry?
How?
A guest invited to a home for food does not believe that food is inherently free.
What is a guest in reference to a society?
You’re equating the concept of monetary value with general value. That those two things are inherently the same is a core belief of liberal/bourgeois ideology and IMHO: false.
What if the food was scavenged?
Let’s say a traveler who is not from here and isn’t part of the society I live in.
No, you’re just equating the concept of “free” in a purely monetary sense and completely ignoring the value of things like labour.
Even in this pedantic disconnected argument it still cost someone time and labour…
And they are refusing to participate in your society while still engaging with it? I don’t think thats really possible, and even if it was I don’t really see how it conflicts with socialism.
Lenin believed in the mandate that every able body person contribute before they reaped the benefits of socialism.
I’d argue that this framework was meant by the original post. “Food is free until someone built a fence around it” imho means: you didn’t pay until the fence came.
The post acknowledges that work is necessary in the second post. The original post was purely about the “free as in beer” concept. No one who reads “free beer” thinks that the beer just materialized.
That wasn’t the point. The point was: will my guests in this scenario where I cook (scavenged) food for them think the food is worthless because they didn’t pay for it (i.e. it was free)?
It’s not about “refusing”. It’s about not being part of the society until they arrived and needed food for their travels.
Since when am I arguing against socialism? Food not being gatekept by exchange of monetary value is something that should be the case in socialism, imho.
Ah, you’re bringing up Lenin quotes all of a sudden. That explains the weird arguments you made. Let’s just say I don’t agree with Lenin’s view of how “parasitic” humanity behaves. I don’t think you need compulsion to make the vast majority of people chip in (once they don’t see themselves as rivals in a capitalist ecosystem, that is).