used to think that “left” and “right” were diametrically opposed terms, but i don’t see it that way anymore:

I mean… It depends on the definition you are utilizing. The term originated from the seating arrangement from the French National Assembly prior/during the french revolution. With advocates for a republic on the left, and monarchist on the right.

The most common modern geopolitical definition is now the left supporting socialism and the right supporting capitalism. Two economic systems which are fairly diametrically opposed in an economic sense.

imperialism: Imperialism means to conquer other countries for the sake of imposing your own norms and values on them.

Again, it depends on your definition. But imperialism is generally a policy of a powerful nation who extends it’s rule over another country through direct or indirect means. This can be for economic, strategic, or even political gain, most usually to exploit the resources or labour of another nation.

That’s actually what the northern states of the US did to the southern states of the US before they became the US.

No…just no. You can really do an imperialism on yourself, that’s just definitionally incorrect.

isn’t it just to do something illegal to get what you want? isn’t every change in human history illegal, before it becomes the new norm? wasn’t it illegal for gay people to stand for their rights in the 20th century?

What?

Fascism is purposely hard to define as it’s a reactionary response to the democratic process and thus depends on vagueness to grow within a democracy.

However, fascism can be recognized by its extremely hierarchical structure of governance, its goals as a political body, and how it organizes capitalism to serve its own goals.

liberals from the coastline will loudly proclaim that the conservative “child marriage” (starting at age 14) laws are a monstrosity (because that’s, idk, child abuse or sth), but at the same time, you will find in many schools in the coastside a subject called “sex education” where people learn to use condoms and such. such classes are typically held at about age 13 or sth (well, it was for me). guess why they do it? because they recognize that teenagers do in fact have desires to experiment with sexuality, and offering the courses is simply recognizing that and making the best out of it.

Child marriage laws are bad because it gives a legal avenue for adults to prey upon children… Not because people want to prevent teens from sexual exploration. What is wrong with you?

Lol

I thought you were done responding…

Claiming I think that stuff just materializes, or whatever

“Or whatever” doing a lot of work here. I didn’t say you think stuff materializes. I’m claiming that you don’t care about the people who grow the food that you think is inherently free.

Your claim that food shouldn’t be “gatekept to force people to work” implies that workers should be forced to grow food for people who will not contribute to the well being of people growing the food.

Just because you have not fully thought out your own claim doesn’t mean I’m engaging with a straw man argument when I point that out… You just think that because you don’t know what you are talking about.

software comes from somewhere that’s not “reality”.

Is pedantry just a base reaction for you? Do I have to explain the difference between physical and metaphysical to you? Do you think that the social environment of digital space accurately reflects the social space of the physical world?

I don’t see the point in arguing any longer.

You keep saying that…

please try to stop insulting me.

Stop responding with terrible rebuttals?

It’s not just weird, it’s materially impossible.

I was mainly talking about the people being weirdos. Every monarchist I’ve ever run into have been extreme oddballs.

Technically you can be an anticapitalist and still not a leftist. You could be one of those weirdo turbo conservative monarchists.

Lol, there’s no logical fallacy. You just don’t understand what you’re talking about.

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.

don’t feellike responding anymore

Because your claims are indefensible. Have a good one.

Yes, they did.

Ahh yes, who could forget when we fenced the mountains to purge the land of the hunter and gatherer societies…

People enclosed the commons, which included forests (as an example).

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.

opens up the distinction between overcoming adversities and extending oneself (your definitionof “work” and wage labour (what they called “work”).

Again… That doesn’t really correlate to the original claim.

What do you mean? “Free as in beer” is a common phrase to refer to “gratis”, as opposed to “free as in speech”.

Common in a specific field of open source software…

Beer can be free as in: I can drink it without paying. I’m using Linux or wikipedia without paying either (although I donate).

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.

You claimed “free food” makes people not value food, but now you claim that’s not the case when I invite guests.

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.

Which is what’s meant when I say “free food”.

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.

usually wouldn’t care. Even if there were 24/7 “tourists”, most people have the urge to participate in society somehow.

Then it wouldn’t conflict with my statement.

To each according to their need, from each according to their ability"

What about being a “traveler” affects their ability to participate?

So? Have I somehow claimed I’m against socialism?

You questioned why a brought it up…

You’re effectively argueing that society can’t be productive without gatekeeping food, then? Care to prove that statement?

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.

I’m not constantly checking the instance I’m on and the instance the other person is on

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.

We could live in post-scarcity with the current development of productive forces, though.

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.

You were implying it by gatekeeping food.

By that definition you are compelling people to work the fields…

“Food is free until someone built a fence around it” imho means: you didn’t pay until the fence came.

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”.

The post acknowledges that work is necessary in the second post.

I don’t think it really establishes that at all.

“free as in beer” concept. No one who reads “free beer” thinks that the beer just materialized.

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.

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)?

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.

It’s not about “refusing”. It’s about not being part of the society until they arrived and needed food for their travels.

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.

Since when am I arguing against socialism?

You do realize what instance your on?

Food not being gatekept by exchange of monetary value is something that should be the case in socialism, imho.

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.

Ah, you’re bringing up Lenin quotes all of a sudden. That explains the weird arguments you made.

What do you think the .ml stands for?

Let’s just say I don’t agree with Lenin’s view of how “parasitic” humanity behaves.

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.

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).

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.

even though farming is credited with allowing for population density supporting civilization (tech, stratification etc) plenty of peoples subsisted on the coast for numerous generations prior

Generations prior to agriculture? I don’t really see how that’s relevant to the current conversation.

but fish ponds off the coast supported relatively large populations in antiquity, just by then farming was also a thing so there was no reason not to do both

Since the advent of agriculture grain, legumes, and vegetables have made up the vast majority of calories that have supported human life. Up until relatively recent times animal protein was a relatively small part of most people’s diets.

You’re equating the concept of monetary value with general value.

No, you’re just equating the concept of “free” in a purely monetary sense and completely ignoring the value of things like labour.

What if the food was scavenged?

Even in this pedantic disconnected argument it still cost someone time and labour…

Let’s say a traveler who is not from here and isn’t part of the society I live in.

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.

That’s the bourgeois ideology talking.

How?

A guest invited to a home for food does not believe that food is inherently free.

So guests should go hungry?

What is a guest in reference to a 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.

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.

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.

The only smart person was the guy with the other bear who at first ran back to help, but then realized he would just bringing another bear into the mix. The other bear seemed a little too eager to go back as well.

Not really… No major civilization around bodies of water subsists without agriculture. Fishing just supplements the protein requirements of the population, and unless they’re fishing just mackle it’s not likely to be sustainable.

Is this copium? Maybe, maybe not.

In a place like Texas… More than likely.

In a state that’s closer to a swing state it’s easier to over do it with gerrymandering and spread out your support too thin. In a state where there’s a lot more support to spread out… Accidentally fucking up is a little more challenging to do.

Plus, I would find it difficult to believe that political operatives wouldn’t be able to grasp the idea that things like the Latino vote from the last election might not be as dependable this year and react accordingly.

How does it work with the wok? Wouldn’t it just be the bottom getting the heat?

Right… But one could say the same about the proletariat pre-revolution.

we don’t like corn syrup right?

Yeah, we need corn syrup…please do not be insensitive to our addiction.

There is no stopping the impulsive need to add corn into everything. Corn for the fuel, corn for sugar, corn for the livestock, corn for the hole. If you can cram corn in it, we’ve done it.