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.
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).
Right, it’s a claim made on a baseless assumption. People didn’t build a fence around some berry shrubs in the mountains. They built a fence around agricultural works, which have never been “free”.
I don’t think it really establishes that at all.
I don’t think this is as popular of a concept as you appear to think it is?
If we’re talking about advertising… No one actually thinks the beer is free at all.
My point is that a guest wouldn’t really assume it to be inherently free. They would acknowledge that you spent your time and effort to prepare it and do their best to appreciate it and not be wasteful.
Again you are only addressing value as a monetary transaction.
Yes, but are they planning to participate in the society, or just traveling?
There is nothing in socialism that says a society is responsible for providing basic need to tourists.
You do realize what instance your on?
It’s not about gatekeeping… It’s about providing the basic needs for the most amount of people as possible. Something you can’t do without creating a productive society.
What do you think the .ml stands for?
Lol, it’s not that people are parasitic… We just haven’t reached post scarcity yet. Meaning everyone must contribute to the best of their ability.
Who said anything about compulsion? We’re talking about creating enough resources to provide for everyone in society. If we haven’t reached post scarcity, meaning there still isn’t enough for everyone to go around. Of course able-bodied people should do their best to help, and if able-bodied people refuse to contribute then of course they should not reap the benefit of other peoples labour before the worker themselves.
Yes, they did.
People enclosed the commons, which included forests (as an example).
It opens up the distinction between overcoming adversities and extending oneself (your definitionof “work” and wage labour (what they called “work”).
What do you mean? “Free as in beer” is a common phrase to refer to “gratis”, as opposed to “free as in speech”.
Beer can be free as in: I can drink it without paying. I’m using Linux or wikipedia without paying either (although I donate).
So why should people not value food if they don’t have to pay for it, then? You claimed “free food” makes people not value food, but now you claim that’s not the case when I invite guests.
Which is what’s meant when I say “free food”.
I usually wouldn’t care. Even if there were 24/7 “tourists”, most people have the urge to participate in society somehow.
I disagree. “To each according to their need, from each according to their ability” doesn’t negate the needs of travelers to eat. (I said traveler - you made them “tourists” for some reason).
So? Have I somehow claimed I’m against socialism?
You’re effectively argueing that society can’t be productive without gatekeeping food, then? Care to prove that statement?
I’m not constantly checking the instance I’m on and the instance the other person is on. I don’t want to assume and I’m lazy.
We could live in post-scarcity with the current development of productive forces, though.
You were implying it by gatekeeping food.