China seeks food security, but at what cost?
China seeks food security, but at what cost?
You're viewing a single thread.
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
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.
It's not an article dumbass it's a 33 min podcast episode by one the Economists top China watcherslmao 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
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.
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?
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.
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.
Which is why they are known for supporting their farmers really fucking hard with technical and financial aid.
Known to who? Wealth inequality in China is almost as wide as the US, and globally still behind about 60 other countries.
Known to who?
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.
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.