People are choosing to ignore the problem: the farmers that are planting rice aren't making as much money farming as farmers that are able to plant for profit, and the gov't isn't doing sufficient to make up for the loss of revenue while despite requiring their labor for the good of the state. As stated in the lede, "But these new plans clash with other signature directives, including pulling farmers out of poverty—and that is causing resentment and confusion." If farmers discover that they can go do other things that involve less backbreaking work and make more money doing it, then you have fewer people willing to farm in the first place. Which, of course, you can solve by using forced labor, since no one seems to give a shit about the Uyghurs.
If you believe that the state is more important than any personal rights to individual self determination, then sure, this is a totally fair policy. If you believe that the state has the right to enforce poverty on one group of people in order to ensure the comfort of a different group of people is morally justified, then it's also cool.
I would say that if the state expects people to do labor, then the state should be expected to pay for that labor. Particularly when that state has the 2nd greatest number of billionaires of any country in the world, and could not realistically be called "communist" when compared to any of the source material.
i dunno i think not dying of starvation is a great human right to have
If you believe that the state has the right to enforce poverty on one group of people
citation needed
since no one seems to give a shit about the Uyghurs.
yes, they are making rice in the deserts of xinjiang using slave labor because there's a shortage of farmers in china. no wait the article is about sichuan
and the gov't isn't doing sufficient to make up for the loss of revenue
yes the chinese government is famous for not supporting it's agricultural sector
I would say that if the state expects people to do labor, then the state should be expected to pay for that labor.
meanwhile the united states actually does use slave labor in the deserts of california, but nobody seems to give a shit about americans
If you believe that the state has the right to enforce poverty on one group of people
Absolutely, OP didn't actually post against colonial power or critiqued any laws against Roma and Sinti or others. They use the argument in bad faith. I mean else they would decry stuff like what Australia does
why do Liberals tell on themselves so hard? They come into a thread to argue against farming sustainability and 5 posts later they sound like a british tory talking about peasant rights
Practice democratic centralism, this means for hexbear shut up and read up on trans rights . The struggle session was decided and in the better times you would've been banned a while ago.
It wasn't just gay bars. There was a specific effort by the government of the DDR to combat homophobia. Also, trans surgeries and hormones were fully funded by the state. You can read more about it here.
I would argue that Western progress in regards to LGBT rights is less related to liberal ideology, and more so a temporary byproduct of the prosperity that was gained through exploitation of the global south. We can see this progress deteriorating in real time as this prosperity is starting to subside.
Edit: Liberalism, capitalism as a whole, are fundamentally based on competition and unequal distribution of wealth. Competition means there will always have to be both winners and losers, anyone can make it, but not everyone can make it. Capitalism means that someone will go empty. And in a society comprised of many different groups of people, as soon as there's not enough for everyone, it will be the weakest groups, the minorities, who will be the first to get kicked off of the lifeboats.
idk, considering that families disowning kids is a massive problem in terms of queer well being, it seems to me that a right to housing is a pretty important thing and the socialist states are way more consistent than liberal states on that one.
Some people use neopronouns. Get over it. I think they're a bit weird too, but so what? If addressing something with weird pronouns affirms their gender identity, then fucking do it. Pretty much everyone I see complaining about neopronouns starts advocating for thanks genocide 5 min late. Consider that that is what you look like now
At least we agree that grammatical gender is a spook
Plenty languages don't have "sex" based differentiation of pronouns, in so far the real neopronouns are things like he, him, she, her (which even in languages that have them became pronounced only in the last few centuries in the way you use and know them).
I quote Wikipedia here and give a list of languages which do not differentiate like you want them to:
Differenzierung nach Sexus
Sprachen ohne Sexusunterscheidung
Viele Sprachen kennen (teilweise ursprünglich) beim Pronomen der 3. Person Singular keine Unterscheidung nach dem Geschlecht des Referenten:
Einige Beispiele solcher Sprachen sind:
Indonesisch/Malaiisch, Madagassisch, philippinische Sprachen, Hawaiisch, Maori, Rapanui und andere austronesische Sprachen
Chinesisch, Birmanisch und andere sinotibetische Sprachen
Thai und andere Tai-Kadai-Sprachen
Vietnamesisch, Santali und andere Mon-Khmer-Sprachen
Swahili, Yoruba und andere Niger-Kongo-Sprachen
Türkisch, Tatarisch und andere Turksprachen
Luo und andere nilosaharanische Sprachen
Ungarisch, Finnisch, Estnisch und andere uralische Sprachen
Georgisch
Armenisch
Mapudungun
Baskisch
Persisch****
Durch Einfluss europäischer Sprachen haben einige der oben genannten Sprachen ein weibliches Pronomen eingeführt.
Im Hochchinesischen beispielsweise geschieht dies durch die Verwendung eines anderen Schriftzeichens (她) für das Pronomen der weiblichen 3. Person Singular (deutsch „sie“) seit dem Beginn des 20. Jahrhunderts. Die Aussprache bleibt dennoch identisch wie die des Pronomens der männlichen (ursprünglich geschlechtsneutralen) 3. Person Singular (他), sodass diese Unterscheidung in der gesprochenen Sprache nicht existiert bzw. nicht erkennbar ist. Des Weiteren wird 它 in der Volksrepublik China für Tiere und Sachen benutzt. Außerhalb der Volksrepublik China findet man 它 für Sachen, 祂 für Götter und 牠 für Tiere. Alle diese Schriftzeichen werden tā ausgesprochen. Auf Taiwan wird 妳 als weibliches Gegenstück zum allgemeinen Pronomen der 2. Person 你 verwendet. Beide Zeichen werden nǐ ausgesprochen.
This one's about food security. You'd rather the free market decide what crops should be grown? Because that's happening in plenty of countries, the IMF encourages countries to deregulate and grow export crops. You know what happens when these countries default on their loans? They can't pay for food imports and they can't subsist on coffee beans.
The EU and the US, so the other two powerful blocks are having pretty much the same policies. They are ordering farmers what they can and can't do (which includes the obligation to switch crops up to ensure soil health - which is in farmer's best long term interest).
They do use policy to allow and deny crops and they do finance food security and ensure that parts of plots aren't used.
In the case of China this news article is part of a series that didn't start long ago in which the arrest of a farmer was shown. That farmer did plant cash crops instead of crops needed to regenerate the soil (you can find in my profile if you seek for it the comment) and this also ensured food safety.
Funnily the studies about cycling the crops do show that this actually ensures cash crop output mid and long term.
Which is to say: It isn't us who don't care about the farmer, it is you who doesn't care about the farmer, its prospects, its family, the community or the food security of 1.4 billion people and the other people who trade food with China which is everyone! Just joking of course
Plenty of youtube comment channels and alike were reeking of the worst sinophobia, yet both the US and the EU would've done the very same to the same farmer if they did breach laws on their soil (pun intended). I.e. planting crops that aren't allowed. In some regions with high water stress there are even ordinances to switch to different crops to ensure water availability for both commercial and residential use.
The same is true for pesticides and some water usage. Those are also policies which do "attack freedoms" as you call it. They ensure community survivability, though. In many cases, but also pesticides those regulations and their enactment, typically via the state's monopoly of violence, is essential to secure freedom actually.
Individual freedom ends were it hurts the freedom of others.
If you believe that the state is more important than any personal rights to individual self determination
I believe that keeping agricultural soil intact for the next ten years is more important than personal right to salt your Earth and destroy your soil. I do believe that the individual interest of short term profit making must be regulated, I don't care much what does the regulation bit, but it does have to be effective regulation enforcement. In China the local district office of Agriculture did it. Rightfully so.
If you believe that the state is more important than any personal rights to individual self determination, then sure, this is a totally fair policy.
Making more profit at the expense of the general public isn't "self determination". There is no such thing as a human right to entrepreneurship. There is, however, a human right to have enough healthy food on your table, as abhorrent as that idea is to redditor liberals and AmeriKKKan pigs.
The question is, why is the burden of labor to provide human rights placed on the shoulders of just a few, while others are free to pursue profit?
Let's say that YOU were forced to grow crops to provide food for me, while I grow crops to enrich myself, and you remain in poverty despite working harder. Does that seem fair?
I agree there's a human right to not dying to climate change.
The question is, why is the burden of following environmental regulation on the shoulders of just a few, like oil companies?
Seriously, it's as if you have this conception that farming and the food industry is run like an MMO. It's all very regulated and subsidized, everywhere, in every single country, with national security and sustainability in mind. Not just environmental sustainability either but financial as well. The only countries that allow their agricultural industry to turn into cash crops are places like Iraq and or the remaining French Colonies in West Africa, places that were invaded and then reformulated entirely to fulfill the economic needs of the US and Europe, respectively.
China is interested in delivering rising living standards to it's peoples. Which is why they've achieved it. Which is why they are known for supporting their farmers really fucking hard with technical and financial aid. If all China wanted to do was chase dollars, they'd still be poorer than most countries in Africa. Where people are 'free' to pursue dollars selling crops to Americans so that they can pay their debts to those same Americans, in return for further loans.
Anybody's who's read about the subject, really. The Chinese are not alone in the sheer amount of state support it gives to it's agriculture, as that's par for the course. However one well known feature of the post revolutionary situation in China is somewhat reminiscent of France. Only for different reasons. Landownership is not consolidated. On the contrary, plots are very small. So part of industrial policy is China is making sure small farmers are as productive as possible, with technical and financial aid to implement everything from solar panels to new supply lines.
Wealth inequality
What does that have to do with State support to farmers?
Do you have a little card next to you titled 'slogans to spam at leftists' or are you a chatbot?
Humans don't have the option to stop growing food.
Ah, I see. You don't live in one of those countries that are both major food exporters and also stricken with constant famine, right? You live in one of those food importers in the International Community, right? I wonder why Iraq now needs to import food while mostly exporting pasta to the USA. Impossible, I know. Profit seeking shouldn't fuck up entire countries. And yet here we are, in reality.
The UK had a very planned economy in place for farmers during world war 2. Farmers were explicitly told what to plant and where to plant it. At the end of the war, the Labour party campaigned on keeping that system mostly in place. The Tories wanted to scrap it.
Guess who won by the largest landslide in history, largely because of the farmers? Hint: It wasn't the conservatives.
If you believe that the state has the right to enforce poverty on one group of people in order to ensure the comfort of a different group of people is morally justified, then it's also cool.
Maybe take that zeal and turn it inwards before you start heckin on another country. If you have a moral maxim, apply it equally. Where does the state act as a tool to enforce poverty on some to enrich a few… That’s a copout justification for heckin on China friend.
since no one seems to give a shit about the Uyghurs.
I love that we're the ones made out to be racists even though I have never seen any sign of such in any marxist community, much less the chinese ones. I was a Lib once too, but you'll get over it eventually.
You're arguing that if people have a right to food they must also have a right to guaranteed profits at government expense, that's incoherent fantasy and not how agricultural subsidies work, not even capitalist theorists would argue such nonsense, you literally don't know the difference between profit and basic sustenance
A minority of wealthier farmers complaining that they aren't receiving enough capital from the state does not invalidate the state goal of ensuring food security, one is an expression of pure greed and entitlement while the other is a matter of life and death, health and sustainability
It's ironic you talk about self-determination while demanding the state subsidize business owners at the expense of the larger sector, basically a pure expression of "right to enforce poverty on one group of people in order to ensure the comfort of a different group" you contradict yourself after every sentence because like all libs you don't actually read or do the research you just go off pure intuition and hope no one notices
Bad faith argument. (By the way, did you read the article? I looked it up, and read it.)
Either the people should be allowed to farm what they choose
-or-
The gov't that is forcing them to farm what the gov't chooses should compensate them for their lost income.
Either you believe in individual rights to self-determination, or you don't. If you don't believe that individuals can choose what is right for themselves when their actions aren't causing measurable, direct, physical harms to other people--and I'm not talking about corporations here, or bosses choosing what their workers can do, but real, individual people--then we really don't have a basis to discuss this in the first place. You can argue that the land belongs to the people as a whole, and not any one person, and I could respect that. But you're arguing that the individual's labor belongs to the state as well, and I take strong issue with that.
Expect it normal individual farmers dumbasses, these are Chinese agribusiness, collective village co-ops and state owned fields
Again you don't know how agricultural subsidies work, the state doesnt care about an individual and thier small allotment in a village, they care about the farms with thousands of acres that uses seasonal migrant labor from the city to harvest
Or in the case of the subsidies, state brokered heavy equipment and subsidized feed
You literally dont have a clue how Chinese agriculture works, those capitalists are already making profits at state expense, some of them are whining they can't speculate on different inefficient crops without losing state subsidy
Those corporations don't have an automatic right to state subsidy and they don't have a right to play around with the food, you're basically arguing China should return to the conditions that caused famines in the past; poor speculation, hoarding and soil exhaustion by greedy landowners
Hopefully in the future China can skip the remaining middlemen and hand over the farms to the workers themselves instead of giving those bloodsuckers artifical profits
It's not an article dumbass it's a 33 min podcast episode by one the Economists top China watchers
lmao YOU didn't even borrow to click the link, thanks for the laugh, next time engage with the subject matter instead of just bullshitting your way thru
Yea, I don't two shite about those Uyghurs that using DJI drone to farm their crop, just like how you probably don't give two shite about them when american govt carpet bomb their ass.
I would probably clarify that you mean don't care about the made up bullshit about whats happening in Xinjiang not that you literally dont care about the ethnic group, lol.
People are choosing to ignore the problem: the farmers that are planting rice aren't making as much money farming as farmers that are able to plant for profit, and the gov't isn't doing sufficient to make up for the loss of revenue while despite requiring their labor for the good of the state. As stated in the lede, "But these new plans clash with other signature directives, including pulling farmers out of poverty—and that is causing resentment and confusion." If farmers discover that they can go do other things that involve less backbreaking work and make more money doing it, then you have fewer people willing to farm in the first place. Which, of course, you can solve by using forced labor, since no one seems to give a shit about the Uyghurs.
If you believe that the state is more important than any personal rights to individual self determination, then sure, this is a totally fair policy. If you believe that the state has the right to enforce poverty on one group of people in order to ensure the comfort of a different group of people is morally justified, then it's also cool.
I would say that if the state expects people to do labor, then the state should be expected to pay for that labor. Particularly when that state has the 2nd greatest number of billionaires of any country in the world, and could not realistically be called "communist" when compared to any of the source material.
i dunno i think not dying of starvation is a great human right to have
citation needed
yes, they are making rice in the deserts of xinjiang using slave labor because there's a shortage of farmers in china. no wait the article is about sichuan
yes the chinese government is famous for not supporting it's agricultural sector
meanwhile the united states actually does use slave labor in the deserts of california, but nobody seems to give a shit about americans
Absolutely, OP didn't actually post against colonial power or critiqued any laws against Roma and Sinti or others. They use the argument in bad faith. I mean else they would decry stuff like what Australia does
Lol I got to the forced labor part and immediately looked up to see what instance you were from. I love federation
Removed by mod
hi liberal
Removed by mod
lmao liberal
Removed by mod
You are not trans, shut the fuck up rn about what trans people need to an audience of primarily trans people on an aggressively pro trans instance
deleted by creator
real quick, before the mods ban you, post a well-lit picture of your penis. they're very strict about this, so you don't have much time.
edit: too late
oh i see you're a Liberal with a capital L
why do Liberals tell on themselves so hard? They come into a thread to argue against farming sustainability and 5 posts later they sound like a british tory talking about peasant rights
deleted by creator
Get your xerophthalmic ass off my board.
From what I can tell, this a malnutrition-induced condition causing dry eyes. What is this about?
Removed by mod
Seemingly not based on your comments, fuck off out of our instance
Removed by mod
damn, you're such a Liberal you had to respond to me twice about how much of a Liberal you totally aren't
trans rights are human rights btw
You’re one of those fucking morons from r/stupidpol aren’t you?
Practice democratic centralism, this means for hexbear shut up and read up on trans rights
. The struggle session was decided and in the better times you would've been banned a while ago.
Go fuck yourself. You're literally saying that transphobia is trans people's fault. We do not tolerate that bullshit here.
Removed by mod
I'm sorry, what part of "Go fuck yourself" was not clear?
what kind of idiot wastes their time taking stances that aren't strong anyhow? Give it 100% or don't bother.
deleted by creator
Who would have guessed that the anticommunist would be a transphobe
Name one communist country that isn't homophobic and transphobic.
Cuba has the most progressive family code in the world
The DDR had state-run gay bars when West Germany was still locking up gay people under anti-homosexuality laws passed by the Nazis
Can you give me a source to read on Cuba's family code and what makes it the most progressive family code in the world?
Gay bars are a reallyy low bar for progressiveness.
Here is a summary of its contents. It was ratified by popular referendum by a wide margin, with 2/3 of all votes in favor.
And yet it was still enough to put DDR ahead of West "Let's have former Nazi judges sentence gay people under laws passed by the Nazis" Germany.
It wasn't just gay bars. There was a specific effort by the government of the DDR to combat homophobia. Also, trans surgeries and hormones were fully funded by the state. You can read more about it here.
Here are some sources on Cuba for your perusal:
Props for wanting to learn but damn you should do that first before talking shit
I can name the majority of capitalist countries that are homophobic, far outnumbering any communist ones
here's a brief history of the increase in queer rights in cuba
Name one country that isn't homophobic and transphobic.
Exactly, they're all homophobic and transphobic, but liberal counties so far have a better track record of pushing the envelope.
I would argue that Western progress in regards to LGBT rights is less related to liberal ideology, and more so a temporary byproduct of the prosperity that was gained through exploitation of the global south. We can see this progress deteriorating in real time as this prosperity is starting to subside.
Edit: Liberalism, capitalism as a whole, are fundamentally based on competition and unequal distribution of wealth. Competition means there will always have to be both winners and losers, anyone can make it, but not everyone can make it. Capitalism means that someone will go empty. And in a society comprised of many different groups of people, as soon as there's not enough for everyone, it will be the weakest groups, the minorities, who will be the first to get kicked off of the lifeboats.
What is your opinion on the massive U.S. Industry around "gay conversion" and "troubled teen" camps?
idk, considering that families disowning kids is a massive problem in terms of queer well being, it seems to me that a right to housing is a pretty important thing and the socialist states are way more consistent than liberal states on that one.
You must be fucking blind if you think thats the truth
Removed by mod
Some people use neopronouns. Get over it. I think they're a bit weird too, but so what? If addressing something with weird pronouns affirms their gender identity, then fucking do it. Pretty much everyone I see complaining about neopronouns starts advocating for thanks genocide 5 min late. Consider that that is what you look like now
Removed by mod
At least we agree that grammatical gender is a spook
Plenty languages don't have "sex" based differentiation of pronouns, in so far the real neopronouns are things like he, him, she, her (which even in languages that have them became pronounced only in the last few centuries in the way you use and know them).
I quote Wikipedia here and give a list of languages which do not differentiate like you want them to:
Differenzierung nach Sexus Sprachen ohne Sexusunterscheidung
Viele Sprachen kennen (teilweise ursprünglich) beim Pronomen der 3. Person Singular keine Unterscheidung nach dem Geschlecht des Referenten:
Einige Beispiele solcher Sprachen sind:
Durch Einfluss europäischer Sprachen haben einige der oben genannten Sprachen ein weibliches Pronomen eingeführt.
Im Hochchinesischen beispielsweise geschieht dies durch die Verwendung eines anderen Schriftzeichens (她) für das Pronomen der weiblichen 3. Person Singular (deutsch „sie“) seit dem Beginn des 20. Jahrhunderts. Die Aussprache bleibt dennoch identisch wie die des Pronomens der männlichen (ursprünglich geschlechtsneutralen) 3. Person Singular (他), sodass diese Unterscheidung in der gesprochenen Sprache nicht existiert bzw. nicht erkennbar ist. Des Weiteren wird 它 in der Volksrepublik China für Tiere und Sachen benutzt. Außerhalb der Volksrepublik China findet man 它 für Sachen, 祂 für Götter und 牠 für Tiere. Alle diese Schriftzeichen werden tā ausgesprochen. Auf Taiwan wird 妳 als weibliches Gegenstück zum allgemeinen Pronomen der 2. Person 你 verwendet. Beide Zeichen werden nǐ ausgesprochen.
Ableism, which tracks. Chill out a day Fae.
Do you have an issue with hexbear's pronoun tags?
Removed by mod
What do you think of the decision to incorporate trans women athletes into women's sports?
ah a transphobe, funny how all these people reveal the same colors whenever they pretend to care about china
Omg somebody sent a transphobic response and I missed it? I'm a true ally now somebody come give me my cookie and Lenin medal
If you think the state regulating what farmers can plant is unfair, wait till you hear of health & safety regulation. It's mad!
Sit down for this bc I'm about to blow your mind:
Regulation not all good, not all bad. Some regulation is good. Some regulation is bad.
This one's about food security. You'd rather the free market decide what crops should be grown? Because that's happening in plenty of countries, the IMF encourages countries to deregulate and grow export crops. You know what happens when these countries default on their loans? They can't pay for food imports and they can't subsist on coffee beans.
I disagree, I think that this piece makes a compelling counter to your argument
The EU and the US, so the other two powerful blocks are having pretty much the same policies. They are ordering farmers what they can and can't do (which includes the obligation to switch crops up to ensure soil health - which is in farmer's best long term interest).
They do use policy to allow and deny crops and they do finance food security and ensure that parts of plots aren't used.
In the case of China this news article is part of a series that didn't start long ago in which the arrest of a farmer was shown. That farmer did plant cash crops instead of crops needed to regenerate the soil (you can find in my profile if you seek for it the comment) and this also ensured food safety.
Funnily the studies about cycling the crops do show that this actually ensures cash crop output mid and long term.
Which is to say: It isn't us who don't care about the farmer, it is you who doesn't care about the farmer, its prospects, its family, the community or the food security of 1.4 billion people and the other people who trade food with China which is everyone!
Just joking of course 
Plenty of youtube comment channels and alike were reeking of the worst sinophobia, yet both the US and the EU would've done the very same to the same farmer if they did breach laws on their soil (pun intended). I.e. planting crops that aren't allowed. In some regions with high water stress there are even ordinances to switch to different crops to ensure water availability for both commercial and residential use.
The same is true for pesticides and some water usage. Those are also policies which do "attack freedoms" as you call it. They ensure community survivability, though. In many cases, but also pesticides those regulations and their enactment, typically via the state's monopoly of violence, is essential to secure freedom actually.
Individual freedom ends were it hurts the freedom of others.
I believe that keeping agricultural soil intact for the next ten years is more important than personal right to salt your Earth and destroy your soil. I do believe that the individual interest of short term profit making must be regulated, I don't care much what does the regulation bit, but it does have to be effective regulation enforcement. In China the local district office of Agriculture did it. Rightfully so.
Making more profit at the expense of the general public isn't "self determination". There is no such thing as a human right to entrepreneurship. There is, however, a human right to have enough healthy food on your table, as abhorrent as that idea is to redditor liberals and AmeriKKKan pigs.
I agree there's a human right to food.
The question is, why is the burden of labor to provide human rights placed on the shoulders of just a few, while others are free to pursue profit?
Let's say that YOU were forced to grow crops to provide food for me, while I grow crops to enrich myself, and you remain in poverty despite working harder. Does that seem fair?
Seriously, it's as if you have this conception that farming and the food industry is run like an MMO. It's all very regulated and subsidized, everywhere, in every single country, with national security and sustainability in mind. Not just environmental sustainability either but financial as well. The only countries that allow their agricultural industry to turn into cash crops are places like Iraq and or the remaining French Colonies in West Africa, places that were invaded and then reformulated entirely to fulfill the economic needs of the US and Europe, respectively.
China is interested in delivering rising living standards to it's peoples. Which is why they've achieved it. Which is why they are known for supporting their farmers really fucking hard with technical and financial aid. If all China wanted to do was chase dollars, they'd still be poorer than most countries in Africa. Where people are 'free' to pursue dollars selling crops to Americans so that they can pay their debts to those same Americans, in return for further loans.
Your analogy of agriculture to fossile fuel energy is very disingenuous and stupid.
Humans don't have the option to stop growing food. Humans have the option to stop burning fossile fuels.
Known to who? Wealth inequality in China is almost as wide as the US, and globally still behind about 60 other countries.
Anybody's who's read about the subject, really. The Chinese are not alone in the sheer amount of state support it gives to it's agriculture, as that's par for the course. However one well known feature of the post revolutionary situation in China is somewhat reminiscent of France. Only for different reasons. Landownership is not consolidated. On the contrary, plots are very small. So part of industrial policy is China is making sure small farmers are as productive as possible, with technical and financial aid to implement everything from solar panels to new supply lines.
What does that have to do with State support to farmers?
Do you have a little card next to you titled 'slogans to spam at leftists' or are you a chatbot?
Ah, I see. You don't live in one of those countries that are both major food exporters and also stricken with constant famine, right? You live in one of those food importers in the International Community, right? I wonder why Iraq now needs to import food while mostly exporting pasta to the USA. Impossible, I know. Profit seeking shouldn't fuck up entire countries. And yet here we are, in reality.
The UK had a very planned economy in place for farmers during world war 2. Farmers were explicitly told what to plant and where to plant it. At the end of the war, the Labour party campaigned on keeping that system mostly in place. The Tories wanted to scrap it.
Guess who won by the largest landslide in history, largely because of the farmers? Hint: It wasn't the conservatives.
deleted by creator
Maybe take that zeal and turn it inwards before you start heckin on another country. If you have a moral maxim, apply it equally. Where does the state act as a tool to enforce poverty on some to enrich a few… That’s a copout justification for heckin on China friend.
I love that we're the ones made out to be racists even though I have never seen any sign of such in any marxist community, much less the chinese ones. I was a Lib once too, but you'll get over it eventually.
Willingly or not
You're arguing that if people have a right to food they must also have a right to guaranteed profits at government expense, that's incoherent fantasy and not how agricultural subsidies work, not even capitalist theorists would argue such nonsense, you literally don't know the difference between profit and basic sustenance
A minority of wealthier farmers complaining that they aren't receiving enough capital from the state does not invalidate the state goal of ensuring food security, one is an expression of pure greed and entitlement while the other is a matter of life and death, health and sustainability
It's ironic you talk about self-determination while demanding the state subsidize business owners at the expense of the larger sector, basically a pure expression of "right to enforce poverty on one group of people in order to ensure the comfort of a different group" you contradict yourself after every sentence because like all libs you don't actually read or do the research you just go off pure intuition and hope no one notices
Bad faith argument. (By the way, did you read the article? I looked it up, and read it.)
Either the people should be allowed to farm what they choose
-or-
The gov't that is forcing them to farm what the gov't chooses should compensate them for their lost income.
Either you believe in individual rights to self-determination, or you don't. If you don't believe that individuals can choose what is right for themselves when their actions aren't causing measurable, direct, physical harms to other people--and I'm not talking about corporations here, or bosses choosing what their workers can do, but real, individual people--then we really don't have a basis to discuss this in the first place. You can argue that the land belongs to the people as a whole, and not any one person, and I could respect that. But you're arguing that the individual's labor belongs to the state as well, and I take strong issue with that.
Expect it normal individual farmers dumbasses, these are Chinese agribusiness, collective village co-ops and state owned fields
Again you don't know how agricultural subsidies work, the state doesnt care about an individual and thier small allotment in a village, they care about the farms with thousands of acres that uses seasonal migrant labor from the city to harvest
Or in the case of the subsidies, state brokered heavy equipment and subsidized feed
You literally dont have a clue how Chinese agriculture works, those capitalists are already making profits at state expense, some of them are whining they can't speculate on different inefficient crops without losing state subsidy
Those corporations don't have an automatic right to state subsidy and they don't have a right to play around with the food, you're basically arguing China should return to the conditions that caused famines in the past; poor speculation, hoarding and soil exhaustion by greedy landowners
Hopefully in the future China can skip the remaining middlemen and hand over the farms to the workers themselves instead of giving those bloodsuckers artifical profits
I'll take that as no, you haven't read the article, and no, you don't believe in individual self determination.
Nice chat.
lmao YOU didn't even borrow to click the link, thanks for the laugh, next time engage with the subject matter instead of just bullshitting your way thru
Yea, I don't two shite about those Uyghurs that using DJI drone to farm their crop, just like how you probably don't give two shite about them when american govt carpet bomb their ass.
True, I don't give a fuck
I would probably clarify that you mean don't care about the made up bullshit about whats happening in Xinjiang not that you literally dont care about the ethnic group, lol.
Yeah that's it but I don't have enough fucks to give about these lemmy losers