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.
because you are alienated from the fruits of your labor.
Sometimes I think Marx was just the first “conspiracy theory loving podcast bro” but he didn’t have any of the material to distract him. He also was very privileged and did not have to spend his entire life delivering Taco Bell for Uber Eats. But for some reason he still had that same fundamental need to find an explanation for what we all feel so strongly today. It’s punching us in the face.
Like, Marx gets a lot of credit because he and Engels wrote the best criticisms that have stood the test of time. But, if you lived in that time, most writings were about class conflict in some form. Hell, the “father of capitalism” (Adam Smith) was even extremely critical of obvious contradictions and was very critical of landlords.
As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce.
The last century has been mostly about trying to scare the working class into submission. Pointing to “failures” of socialism as if they existed in a bubble; and not the reality of every necessary resource of the capitalist class going to fighting it.
This is primarily done in developing nations. The US ensures it installs dictators or makes the conditions of the countries impossible through embargos (Cuba/DPRK). But in the US it’s mostly controlled by distractions. The conspiracy theories, toys, drugs, etc.
But the imperial core control is failing. And, my hope, is even if we don’t see progress in the west. That the internal chaos we experience will finally allow the nations the west oppresses to break free.
The alienation we feel needs to be understood in this context. We hate our jobs because they serve no other purpose but to allow us to afford the available distractions we are allowed. Distractions that are becoming less and less meaningful as our material conditions decline and we become more connected to all workers of the world.
Because money robs the intrinsic joys of life.
Lots of research proves it. Here’s just one example https://www.library.hbs.edu/working-knowledge/intrinsic-joy-sparks-ideas-better-than-cash
Also, money is literally power and no one handles power well. It corrupts and the more money the more it ruins people. It really is the root of all that’s bad.
Power doesn’t corrupt, capitalism systemically selects for those most willing to act in corrupt means in order to profit more. You have it flipped.
Definitely an interesting take, and one that I might kinda believe!
I do think that concentrated power is still part of the problem, that problem is just exacerbated by the psycho-selection-filter of capitalism.
Democratization can only really happen within the framework of socialism, where collectivized production and distribution is being worked towards. This necessitates distributed responsibilities, but also doesn’t conflict with having administration, nor an inherent “corruption of power” at the top. Capitalism selects for it, socialism does not.
I’d extend the thought a bit farther. Poorly designed roadways create bad drivers. Growing up in a household with violence increases the likelihood of that child perpetuating violence when they get older. Selectively bred animals aren’t the way they are because of their ideas or some innate feature, they’re the way they are because the system in which they exist creates them that way. The environment or system (large or small) has a major impact on the path individuals take.
If concentrated power and corruption is rarely punished and always rewarded, it is a symptom of the system at-large.
If creating cheap products which pollutes the environment makes a company 2 Billion, gets that company fined only 250 Million, essentially it makes it such that continuing polluting is just the cost of doing business. The system is creating the pollution. This specific system also has the side effect of limiting the competitiveness since a small business owner won’t initially make 2 Billion and cannot eat the cost of a 250 Million fine. All it does is consolidate power and control towards massive corporations that are supported by the government (since the government removes competition through fines, tariffs, or violence).
I’d argue at this point it doesn’t matter which was first because the cycle feeds itself
It absolutely matters, because it means you can have administrative positions without some supernatural corruption.
Power has corrupted long, long before capitalism. Power and corruption are ancient beings.
No, they aren’t metaphysical eldtritch gods infecting humans. Corruption existed prior, yes, in systems also designed to protect rule by a small class of people, like feudalism.
11·5 days agoPower is like a cursed trinket from fantasy literature/games, where upon picking it up it slowly increases “corruption”.
People really do think that way, unfortunately.
Try thinking like this: Having more power means that your decisions, preferences, biases and limitations have more weight. With more weight, you will bulldoze whatever other people want. With all the weight, whatever you say goes. The corruption is a part of the system overruling the rest through no malicious intent.
That’s not corruption, though, that’s just how administration works. There can absolutely be good reasons for people to have more of a say when it comes to decision making, and these people can be selected democratically or meritocratically.
Good luck convincing others of this take. People really truly believe in some sort of supernatural ‘can never possibly resist’ corruptive force when it comes to power. As if the idea of a human that has power and isn’t corrupted is so much more impossible than all the other fantasy bullshit we’ve dreamed up. Hell they even had to make Superman an alien just to get people to accept the idea of a good powerful person.
Ultimately, the answer lies in taking a materialist approach to analysis, rather than an idealist stance. Cutting through the supernatural and relying on the material as our frame of reference helps us demystify subjects like “power corrupting.”
Lol. Actual religious thinking
Or it’s just a creative, figurative way to express a difficult concept.
Also, money is literally power and no one handles power well. It corrupts and the more money the more it ruins people. It really is the root of all that’s bad.
Anarchist spotted. ❤️🖤
If only someone had a theory that explains that alienation 🤔
May I introduce you to the works of Kras Mazov?
I’m a level 3 infra-materialist. I power the entire neighborhood just by thinking about mutual aid.
Hardcore!
that is toil versus work.
work is what you want to do; toil is what you do for someone else
Let’s abolish the former.
In the first sentence, right?
Take a guess!
Don’t listen! They’re making you toil for them!
I remember reading in a game design book how they had a real hard time saying why “play” was different from “work,” since you’re often performing the same behaviours and chasing similar short term goals.
I guess we could go back to a hunter gatherer lifestyle tomorrow. There would certainly be a lot of complaining, not the least of which would be about the food options. Long pig would be on the table for the first year or so
Big “Yet you participate in society” vibes on this one.
Tell me: How does agriculture require private property?
The top comment in the posted image is just stupid, food takes work, like a lot of work. Whether the land is private/public/something else, it takes a lot of work to maintain a steady supply of food.
Yes, food takes a lot of work. But we’re a lot of people with very advanced technology. If we got rid of a few bullshit and counter-productive jobs, the work each and everyone of us would have to do would vanish in comparison to today’s hustle culture.
I think the problem with your messaging here is because it focuses more on the fact that we could restructure society to meet people’s needs rather than profits, but your post doesn’t really describe how we get from here to there. Obviously agitprop is short and oversimplified, but some subjects work better with added context.
I wasn’t making an argument for any particular economic system. Just pointing out the absurdity of the idea that food is “free” or doesn’t require work to produce.
I’m for an equitable distribution of resources and drudgery. Unfortunately, drudgery is an unavoidable aspect of civilization, but I think we can all agree that civilization is (or should be) a net positive. We just need to spread it out evenly.
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.
The commons supported a lot of people in the middle ages with nuts, berries and orchards.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So guests should go hungry?
You can have agriculture without private property, sure. You CAN’T have food without work. Or devices for shitposting without work. No housing without work.
Work, and needing to work to survive, is not unnatural, hoarding the results is.
I think the second post explains how their definition of “work” differs from yours.
I think they define “work” as wage-labour.
Maybe, but then if you abolish wage-labour, you just have a different type of work needed to survive. Either you’re going off-grid and living all on your own, which would mean you don’t have a lot, but you’re truly independent - or you’re part of a society where you don’t get paid a wage, but instead receive certain living conditions similar to everyone else’s, and you’re expected to work to the best of your ability.
Yes, working for a wage is unnatural. But then being part of a large society with super specialized roles is unnatural. We’ve been doing unnatural for thousands of years now.
Maybe, but then if you abolish wage-labour, you just have a different type of work needed to survive
The point is that this kind of work is less alienating.
Either you’re going off-grid and living all on your own, which would mean you don’t have a lot, but you’re truly independent
I’m not arguing for that, since it’s not a realistic scenario.
or you’re part of a society where you don’t get paid a wage, but instead receive certain living conditions similar to everyone else’s, and you’re expected to work to the best of your ability.
Cool, where do I sign up?
Yes, working for a wage is unnatural. But then being part of a large society with super specialized roles is unnatural. We’ve been doing unnatural for thousands of years now.
I don’t want to succumb to the naturalistic fallacy here. I think it makes people miserable, since it runs counter to our brain structure. I don’t think you can say the same thing about large societies (the amount of people you interact with has a natural limit and there’s a natural need for humans to be social).
Joy is the theft of productivity - Corrupt Corporate Cunts
Op has never worked a day on a farm in their life. Id bet probably hasnt even seen one in real life before.
We had a small farm growing up. Ten acres farm/field, 5 acres woods. One acre garden, all the animals.
Was it hard? Yes, I spent my summers in the field as a kid/teen instead of out at the mall with my friends. My work ethic is impeccable, so long as I agree the job I’m doing is helpful, moral and ethical.
That’s what the post is talking about, the value of your own labor for your own benefit.
The head of the household, ran that farm. He worked 38 hours in three days at an employee owned factory, with weekend differential and paid for 40 hours. The other five days, he worked the farm with his three children as helpers. It was a lot of work, even in winter, a lot of work. But the payoff was worth it, the feeling you get producing your own food is fantastic.
No I don’t want to go punch in for minimum wage serving coffee or work at a non employee owned factory where there give you a $1 more than minimum wage and pluck your ass at an injection molding machine. But I would, and do, work hard turning my small plot into a food garden every fucking summer, to try and remember my roots, because the effort is valuable to me, as it’s my own, and the pay off my own to share with whom I want.
Do you have a big like, Ag farm? We had a small family farm, big Ag is much different for sure, but the work to payoff is different when you’re in business for yourself vs a company.
It’s low hanging fruit socialist agitprop from c/196. Don’t overthink it, comrade.
Sustainable population of hunter-gatherers for this planet is just a few millions.
No one is asking for complete transition to hunting and gathering.
🙋🏻♂️
Ok. This person is.
As soon as you add agriculture you’ll get land ownership and conflict. Food stops being free, if you take it, you’ll get killed.
Only if society allows private ownership of the means of production. Collective ownership is a thing.
As soon as you add agriculture you’ll get land ownership
That’s not true. Land can be held in the commons.
Sure, but even if the land is held by the commons someone has to do the actual farming, someone has to bring that food to you , someone has to build the road and the truck that makes this even possible, someone needs to feed you with a spoon because you don’t want to work.
Congratulations in this scenario lots of people need to work, except for you.
I think there’s a mismatch of definitions here: The original post probably means “wage labour” when they wrote “work”. It’s in the second paragraph.
This assumes unversal jurisdictions. This is not what happenes when hunter-gatherers and even nomadic pastoralists attempt to use the agricultural land, which can be in the commons, according to the local agricultural society. Problem is, the others don’t see it that way.
This is for the sake of argument. In practice, all animals are territorial, and chimpansee societies go to war with each other over territory. So you will get hunter-gatherers attacking other tribes, for access to prime territory.
This assumes unversal jurisdictions.
Why? Historically, cultural norms were established to keep the peace.
This is not what happenes when hunter-gatherers and even nomadic pastoralists attempt to use the agricultural land, which can be in the commons, according to the local agricultural society. Problem is, the others don’t see it that way.
The historical context today is different, though. Land is way easier to defend than back when raiding pastoralist tribes could ransack the place.
In practice, all animals are territorial
That’s an unsubstantiated claim that is wrong afaik.
and chimpansee societies go to war with each other
And Bonobos don’t. Cherry-picking species is not a generisable argument.
So you will get hunter-gatherers attacking other tribes, for access to prime territory.
Hunter-gatherers don’t really have that concept of land.
Look at how Guyausa sales is managed.
deleted by creator
‘Punished by Rewards’ by Alfie Kohn should be required reading, explained all my hatred for school and work 🙈
For some people, work brings them validation. If you’re doing a good job at work, you are praised for it because you are “useful”. I think this mindset is relic from our prehistoric past when being useful is contributing to your tribe. The difference though is that most of us are working in private sector, as in working for an individual. A lot of our work don’t necessarily and directly benefit society. In fact, some of our jobs are based on exploitation to cut cost and turn bigger profit. Sure, we pay taxes and it goes to welfare and that is how, as workers we are “contributing to society”, but some of those taxes into politician’s pockets or paid to companies that manufacture bombs and ammunitions to kill civilians abroad. “Earning your keep” and “being useful” are phrases still used but became meaningless under the capitalist system.
Another thing why some people like to work is that it is a distraction from their own personal problems. I understand why but I don’t agree, although you do you.
Lastly, some people aren’t creative enough to have hobbies or do any activities outside work. They make work their life as a result.
These are the reasons why some people prefer work and can’t think of life outside of work. I’m sure there are other reasons so feel free to contribute.
Failed to load media, while the original works?
“Drive,” by Daniel Pink does a pretty good job of explaining it. He also has an excellent TED talk on it.
