You must log in or # to comment.
Space Bobby knows.
Space Bobby is tanning.
The milks about to go bad. And there it goes…
You make the same profit selling food to a starving person or a full person, but the starving person has a higher willingness to pay. The issue WOULDN’T be distribution if it wasn’t for wealth and income inequality.
Wealth and income inequality can be fixed in Democratic Capitalism, you just vote for a tax that is distributed to the poorest people. We just haven’t done that to the degree necessary to solve this problem.
If you think about it, for food, you would sell more if there was less inequality and you could sell to more people at the same price. So if there WAS some all powerful Food Capitalism Cartel they would be in favor of something like a wealth tax to fund a UBI.
Literally all arguments against UBI are based down to “but, but- The workers will have a leverage!”
Dangit Bobbuh
That’s my [work product]! I don’t know you! 🦶🔩
Not entirely true. The whole 3 missed meals from anarchy is kept up to keep the masses satiated.
Maybe we should blanket subsidize groceries?
Kind of weird that in the last 100 years nearly all the worst famines occured it communist countries.
Except that’s not true? China had much worse famines before the communist revolution, and both China and the USSR never had a famine after the ones you are thinking about.
Meanwhile, we hear every 5 years that hundreds of thousands of people will die of hunger on the Horn of Africa, that millions of people are food insecure at the seat of capitalist power (the US, UK etc.). We see breadlines in the UK, families going hungry because of foodstamp cuts.
And then you see Vietnam, China, Cuba… and they have eliminated famine. Not hunger, but famine. Meaning there are no food insecure people. The USSR had done the same before it collapsed. People in the USSR had better food security than people in the US after the 50s.
You basically don’t know what you’re talking about and are just repeating propaganda points from the Cold War. It’s vibes based ideology, no facts or science.
ROFL nothing what you said is remotely true lol
Saying people in the ussr had better food security than people in the USA in the 50s hahahahahaha
Tankies…lol
millions of people are food insecure at the seat of capitalist power (the US, UK etc.). We see breadlines in the UK, families going hungry because of foodstamp cuts.
There’s food insecure people in China too. It’s not different in that respect at all.
There is, but when people say “eliminate hunger” or “food insecurity” in these neolib global think tanky way they mean statistically eliminate them.
China has better food security than Italy, Greece, Singapore, South Korea etc. and you’d never associate those countries with hunger or food insecurity.
China has better food security than Italy, Greece, Singapore, South Korea etc.
I find that hard to believe. Which numbers do you base this on?
Ah, fair enough then
Removed by mod
I don’t have to find sources for you. But the Irish famine literally was a famine of laissez faire policies. The British landowning class of Ireland deliberately chose to export the agricultural produce of Ireland because it was more profitable. The government refused to step in to create regulations or limitations on exports and that’s what caused the famine. Also, the mono-culture of potatoes was also a factor of capitalism. Industrial mono-culture is the agricultural form of capitalism.
Removed by mod
I would suggest not drawing the line between capitalist corporate societies and authoritarian communist dictatorships. Not every message needs to be about government models.
I take a message like this to start a conversation about cooperation instead of greed. Conceptually, I don’t see it scaling to 8 billion people.
But the great thing is that we can all individually make the choice to operate this way within our smaller communities, and offer support to those in need when we can afford to. You can even scale this concept down to your family or your team at work. Cooperation can convert certain resources away from being a fixed-sum game.
There’s a larger issue of paltering within the previous statement in that it artificially limits the time span under scrutiny and to the headline famines (rather than sum totals) to railroad a specific political inference in service of an anti-collectivist meme.
I’m not agreeing with op but for this meme it does make sense to limit the timeframe. Production and worldwide logistics have only recently given us the ability to feed everyone on earth reliably and consistently.
Two hundred years ago a surplus in Argentina couldn’t easily be applied to a failed crop in Bangladesh. The world as a whole now produces more than enough food and we have the ability to transport it from anywhere to anywhere. We just don’t do it. In the past hunger sometimes couldn’t be avoided, now it could.
It’s true that the transport system is much faster and reliable now than the 1840’s but you didn’t need a Prime subscription to lift a famine. Transport back then was still fast enough.
The conditions that cause famines lasted multiple seasons/years and they didn’t drop in over night either. Famine struck areas slide into scarcity slowly as the price of the cheapest food available rises above what is affordable by the poorest in that society.
In some areas, such as the Irish potato famine in the 1840’s, there was still a surplus of food being exported to markets that could afford it. Aid, when it eventually arrived in Ireland came from Britain, USA, Indian Ocean, France, Canada, West Indies, Australia, Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium, Italy, Germany, Switzerland, south America, Russia, Latin America, the Ottoman Empire, Spain, Portugal and other British Dependencies. The world was much more connected back then than you may be aware.
Thank you for the links.
It does make sense to limit at least when there’s socialist states if you want to compare capitalist states to socialist ones.
Only if you wanted to hide all the earlier famines that happened under capitalism under the tenuous argument that there’s some overarching uniformity of development, opportunity, meteorological events, natural disaster etc etc worldwide that allows for fair comparison within the same timeframe.
It just doesn’t make sense to compate two completely different timeframes as-is.
On the contrary. There is no cognizant reason to limit the timeframe other than to bury relevant facts unfavorable to anti-left rhetoric.
I thought the point was to compare the two. Wouldn’t make sense to give one a much longer timespan in the comparison.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Hunger in capitalism is not about famines, it’s about mass produced cheap food full of sodium, sugar and chemicals, yes people are feed but at the cost of obesity and other health problems, it’s about farmers pushed to plant specific crops to the detriment of the environment and the land, pushed to buy seeds from Monsanto and punished if they dare to plant their own crops.
People still are going hungry in the world, but not we’re you can see it, and you will never see it, in your bubble of lights and advertisment.
It’s also about famines tho…
The Irish Famine was 100% caused by capitalism. The Bengal Famine is the same. All famines today in the capitalist world are the fault of capitalist logic. When people die of hunger in Ethiopia or Eritrea, it’s capitalism killing them.
Removed by mod
What are you talking about? The Irish famine was caused by two factors:
- The potato blight, and potato mono-culture. Potato mono-culture being caused by capitalism, by industrialisation, privatisation of Irish land at the hands of British landlords, and profit maximisation in a laissez faire market.
- During the famine, it was more profitable for the British landlords to export agricultural produce to England and other parts of Europe than to sell it in Ireland. So laws of the market dictated pretty much everything was exported.
The famine was literally caused by the government NOT stepping in, doubling down on laissez faire liberalism and using racist Malthusian excuses like “helping the Irish would just make things worse cause they would procreate like rabbits and need even MORE food”…
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
No, people here can’t even afford that garbage. It actually is more economical to buy unprocessed vegetables, beans, meats, fruits and to just cook your own food.
The only feasible way to participate in the economy is to not be dependent on it to survive.
try to convince all manufactures to stop selling. If won’t happen, because of huge profits that follow deficit
deleted by creator
You’re absolutely right, it’s because no one is motivated to do the unenjoyable work
