No we obviously built agriculture so we could have futures trading
this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2026
904 points (98.5% liked)
Flippanarchy
2553 readers
556 users here now
Flippant Anarchism. A lighter take on social criticism with the aim of agitation.
Post humorous takes on capitalism and the states which prop it up. Memes, shitposting, screenshots of humorous good takes, discussions making fun of some reactionary online, it all works.
This community is anarchist-flavored. Reactionary takes won't be tolerated.
Don't take yourselves too seriously. Serious posts go to !anarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Rules
-
If you post images with text, endeavour to provide the alt-text
-
If the image is a crosspost from an OP, Provide the source.
-
Absolutely no right-wing jokes. This includes "Anarcho"-Capitalist concepts.
-
Absolutely no redfash jokes. This includes anything that props up the capitalist ruling classes pretending to be communists.
-
No bigotry whatsoever. See instance rules.
-
This is an anarchist comm. You don't have to be an anarchist to post, but you should at least understand what anarchism actually is. We're not here to educate you.
-
No shaming people for being anti-electoralism. This should be obvious from the above point but apparently we need to make it obvious to the turbolibs who can't control themselves. You have the rest of lemmy to moralize.
Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It already is, dumbass.
Note: It's a right in the sense of "it should be available to buy", but not "you can get it for free"-kind-of-right.
Uhh it starts with I can't believe anyone would think implying there are a lot of people who don't think it is a right. Your or the UN's declaration that it is right means nothing if people don't agree to it. Besides, the devil is always in the details.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/09/united-nations-right-to-food-us-hunger
A right can be positive or negative. Saying you have the right to buy food without money is pointless. A positive right would mean someone would need to provide you that food if you can't afford it. What type of right and is it provided if needed is the crux of the issue.
Food should not be a commodity
Would you prefer it was a luxury?
The shareholders disagree. And their opinion is the only one that matters
Remember the countries that voted in the UN against food being a human right ? The USA and Israel.
Yeah these two would vote against air being a human right.
For profit. Who cares about people?
Food, shelter and warmth are the only things we need. And we have more than enough for every single person on earth. Boy oh boy did we ever reveal our shortcomings as a race. Even barn rats look out for each other.
Water.
Yeah and water might soon become the one thing we don't have enough of
Who is "we"? What "race"?
No thanks on this vague distraction from the actual blame.
The human race, I presume. Even though humanity isn't a race. English is so fucked up.
Then plant your own produce, dead ass
So the issue is: we industrialized because we wanted to sell more food while paying less people for working. Not because we wanted to make the world a better place.
Industrialization and AI are actually very similar. Both were pushed by rich people who wanted to pay less for producing more.
And just like industrialization, push to use AI is lowering quality of everything. Because quality things cannot be mass-produced.
Industrialized ag happened because the large majority of people don't want to do the hard work of farming. All of you here want to make a 6+ figure income sitting in your comfortable home office. Rather than working 10-hour days sweating in the hot sun to grow your own food and provide for its storage.
You wanted those pretty lights and shiny baubles the urban life provides. So, because so many people want to get that nice cushy life, you have fewer people needing to feed more and more people that can't provide food for themselves. So what is the end result?
Quality things can be mass-produced but you don't have to renew them as often and you quickly reach saturation of the market and thus your sales plumet.
So they prefer enshittification and planned obsolescence...
You mistake quality with durability.
We could have things that are aesthetically pleasing instead of just endless gray boxes. We could have machines that have functionality more tailored to our needs. But that wouldn't be as easy to automate in production.
nah, that's where you're wrong. We industrialised agriculture to make trillionaires while the rest of us die.
Capitalism can not exist without the violent deprivation of basic human needs.
Fr, where do people think their clothes come from?
Lock-and-key grain agriculture exists precisely TO suppress people. Grain agriculture spread not because bread is a miracle and we all love it and need so much of it, but rather because grains have a predictable harvest and consistent size and weight that makes them useful for taxing purposes for states -- and it makes populations grow because it requires you to be sedentary... which also useful for states in many situations. States and hierarchies are the problem.
view more: next ›