this post was submitted on 08 Dec 2025
267 points (92.4% liked)

Antiwork

9549 readers
2 users here now

  1. We're trying to improving working conditions and pay.

  2. We're trying to reduce the numbers of hours a person has to work.

  3. We talk about the end of paid work being mandatory for survival.

Partnerships:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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 are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today 1 points 5 days ago (10 children)

"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.

[–] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net -1 points 5 days ago (9 children)

People didn't build a fence around some berry shrubs in the mountains.

Yes, they did.

They built a fence around agricultural works, which have never been "free".

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

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

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

I don't think this is as popular of a concept as you appear to think it is?

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

No one actually thinks the beer is free at all.

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

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.

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.

Again you are only addressing value as a monetary transaction.

Which is what's meant when I say "free food".

Yes, but are they planning to participate in the society, or just traveling?

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

There is nothing in socialism that says a society is responsible for providing basic need to tourists.

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).

You do realize what instance your on?

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

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.

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

What do you think the .ml stands for?

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.

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.

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

Who said anything about compulsion?

You were implying it by gatekeeping food.

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today 0 points 4 days ago (8 children)

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......

[–] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net -1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The commons were still worked.....

I don't feellike responding anymore if you're strawmanning and writing novels at the same time.

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net -1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Because your claims are indefensible

I'm sure thateapplies to the strawman you built of me. Have fun feeling superior to that guy.

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

You're making up stuff that I never said. Claiming I think that stuff just materializes, or whatever. That's the definitioneof a strawman.

Then you claim that software comes from somewhere that's not "reality".

I'm sure the weird projectioneof me that you got in your head doesn't know what they're talking about. But that homie is diverging from me by that much that I don't see the point in arguing any longer.

You already wished me "a good one". So please try to stop insulting me.

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

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?

[–] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Stop responding with terrible rebuttals?

So you agree with me that you're just insulting me. At least you're kind of honest.

You made up about 90% of my "terrible rebuttals". Like that I think that farmers should be forced to do anything. I'd explain it to you, but you have more interest in dunking on some weird phantom based on my post.

Edit: gonna block you now. Have fun getting the last word which I won't read.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)