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 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.
Ahh yes, who could forget when we fenced the mountains to purge the land of the hunter and gatherer societies…
The commons were still worked… It wasn’t just an open field of free food. People raised livestock and farmed the commons, the land itself was just collective. Whether or not land should be collectively owned is not what we’re talking about.
Again… That doesn’t really correlate to the original claim.
Common in a specific field of open source software…
The tech field is not an accurate simulation of actual reality…who would have thought? I swear, programming gives people a brain disease that makes them incapable of thinking outside of digital space.
No, I said there is no such thing as inherently free food. My example that guest wouldn’t waste your food even if they weren’t paying for it supports the argument I’ve been making the whole time.
And that is why everyone is disagreeing with you. Claiming that food was free before people put a fence around it is nonsensical with your definition, and incorrect when evaluated by other means.
Then it wouldn’t conflict with my statement.
What about being a “traveler” affects their ability to participate?
You questioned why a brought it up…
Lol, you do understand that food has to be produced by workers? And those workers have other basic needs that need to be met by other workers in other areas of production?
Society can’t be productive without workers… Workers who reap the benefits of their own production. Should farmers be the only workers to just be forced to endlessly work once their own needs are met?
You’re effectively arguing that farmers should be slaves to the land while others are free to contribute as they please.
Then you can’t question the relevancy of a certain argument if you’re too lazy to be aware of the context of your surroundings.
Possibly? If we rearranged the global economy and enforced strict centralization and productivity… But even then, the standards of living would be incredibly low compared to what most westerners are accustomed too, and you would have much less leisure time.
By that definition you are compelling people to work the fields…
I don’t feellike responding anymore if you’re strawmanning and writing novels at the same time.
Lol, like labour is somehow disconnected from cost and value…
You could not just go out into a random field in the common and harvest crops someone else planted even though the commons were collectively owned.
Because your claims are indefensible. Have a good one.
I’m sure thateapplies to the strawman you built of me. Have fun feeling superior to that guy.