266
submitted 1 week ago* (last edited 5 days ago) by Prunebutt@slrpnk.net to c/antiwork@lemmy.ml

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.

(page 2) 33 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Zexks@lemmy.world 0 points 6 days ago

Op has never worked a day on a farm in their life. Id bet probably hasnt even seen one in real life before.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] underisk@lemmy.ml 51 points 1 week ago

because you are alienated from the fruits of your labor.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] bluegreenpurplepink@lemmy.world 26 points 1 week ago

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.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 34 points 1 week ago

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.

[-] TheSambassador@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago

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.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 22 points 1 week ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] bluegreenpurplepink@lemmy.world -4 points 1 week ago

Power has corrupted long, long before capitalism. Power and corruption are ancient beings.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 18 points 1 week ago

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.

[-] Edie@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Power is like a cursed trinket from fantasy literature/games, where upon picking it up it slowly increases "corruption".

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 16 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

People really do think that way, unfortunately.

[-] elfpie@lemmy.eco.br 0 points 6 days ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 8 points 1 week ago

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. ❤️🖤

[-] TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com 18 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

that is toil versus work.

work is what you want to do; toil is what you do for someone else

[-] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 week ago
[-] usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 week ago

In the first sentence, right?

[-] starik@lemmy.zip 9 points 1 week ago

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

[-] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net -3 points 1 week ago

Big "Yet you participate in society" vibes on this one.

Tell me: How does agriculture require private property?

[-] jacksilver@lemmy.world 20 points 1 week ago

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.

[-] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 week ago

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.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 week ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] starik@lemmy.zip 8 points 1 week ago

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.

[-] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 week ago

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.

[-] usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 week ago

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.

load more comments (18 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] CuddlyCassowary@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

“Drive,” by Daniel Pink does a pretty good job of explaining it. He also has an excellent TED talk on it.

https://youtu.be/rrkrvAUbU9Y

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›
this post was submitted on 08 Dec 2025
266 points (92.1% liked)

Antiwork

9555 readers
1 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