The Goose has no understanding of the motivations or desires of the Villagers. The Goose simply wants the Bell and takes whatever steps it finds necessary to obtain the Bell. From its perspective, the Village is a machine that produces Bells.
The Villagers desire an orderly Village. They care nothing about the needs or desires of the Goose. But because they tolerate the intrusions of the Goose, they spend all of their time protecting and rebuilding the Village, and none of their time enjoying it.
And so the Goose is the de facto owner of the Village. Even though the Villagers consider the Goose to be just a pest, their daily activities are actually oriented around serving its desires, not their own, while the Goose serves itself exclusively.
The Goose owns a Bell machine. The Villagers comprise the machinery that produces Bells for the Goose. The Villagers do not want to be a Bell machine, and this results in the machine being inefficient–the Goose must press shake and bang the machine to get it to produce–but the relationship of the Goose to the Villagers in nonetheless one of owner to possessions.
What could the villagers do to free themselves of this indignity and oppression? How can they be free?
Either stop making Bells, or kill the Goose.
This is an interesting assessment, and seemingly on-point. Especially as the game-player (assumed to be the literal owner of the game and system) is playing not any of the villagers or all of them, but their antagonist the goose. Ergo, the goose is the owner.
Perhaps a version in which the player operates the villagers, under the same narrative premise (fighting off, and possibly killing, a goose who seeks to steal the bell(s)) would present a different socioeconomic proposition.
If you had to play as the Villagers but were not allowed to kill the Goose, you would quickly says “This is bullshit!” and turn it off in disgust.
This is basically what happens in a revolution.
Brilliant.