LWDT IX: Discussing the Left From All Engels

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

We also produce enough food in the world for no-one to starve, but that food is withheld from people not because we can’t physically transport it, but because the starving can’t pay for it.

When a draught hits the Horn of Africa, it’s not the lack of food that kills people. It’s the lack of income combined with a price surge following decreased supply. It’s entirely a market failure, nothing else.

This can be explained by a number of factors acting in concert as well. First, a lot of developing countries have insufficient food infrastructure. Honestly, a lot of urban and rural areas in developed countries have insufficient food infrastructure. Second, violence interrupts the regular flow of goods, including food, to combat zones and damages food-related infrastructure like fields, roads, butcher shops, grocery stores, markets, etc. Third, food remains a for-profit business - and, if farmers and ranchers are to survive on already low margins, it has to remain so. One option that is viable is changing the way in which the government regulates agriculture and how we deal with excesses of crops and livestock. Another is starting more NGOs and funding existing NGOs that buy and transport food to famine-stricken regions. If there's one place I want to keep the most revolutionary ideas away from, it's agriculture. Because that's how you get even more famines.

You’re applying band-aids over the canyon created by capitalism rather than truly seeking a lasting solution.

All but one of the problems you mention are solvable by willpower. Infrastructure can be built, food can be airlifted. The main problem, from which all other problems stem, is that the food industry is for-profit. That is my criticism of it, that food is a free market commodity while you cannot live without it. And it does not need to be a free market commodity, because you can nationalize the whole thing. I don’t see why people would suddenly start dying if they were given a solid wage by a government rather than having to make a profit. Your solutions of funding NGO’s more is not a solution to hunger, it’s a solution to criticism levied at capitalism. But the capitalist market has already failed here, and it requires massive government aid to not cause an actual genocide. How is that a system worth protecting?

The fact that you want to keep so-called revolutionary ideas (nationalizing the food industry is not really revolutionary or unfathomable but okay) away from agriculture tells me that you aren’t quite getting that the current system of food distribution is already causing massive casualties, which is somehow that is seen as ‘natural’ and ‘necessary’. A system in which 3 million people die of malnutrition each year, and wherein that number is a necessary evil, is not a system I want to maintain by smoothing over the edges.

[Celritannia]

It used to be his thing actually.

Ah. Well, there are no exceptions. Not even the hottest face can fix the terrors inflicted by man-buns.

As a man, I can say man-buns are horrible and deserve to be purged.

[The New California Republic]

Ah. Well, there are no exceptions. Not even the hottest face can fix the terrors inflicted by man-buns.

As a man, I can say man-buns are horrible and deserve to be purged.

Long hair in general needs to be purged.

[Celritannia]

As a man, I can say man-buns are horrible and deserve to be purged.

Long hair in general needs to be purged.

Rude!

[Fahran]

You’re applying band-aids over the canyon created by capitalism rather than truly seeking a lasting solution.

A problem that preexisted capitalism and that would have been even more prominent before the advent of globalization in some cases.

All but one of the problems you mention are solvable by willpower. Infrastructure can be built, food can be airlifted.

That's a bit simplistic given that a lot of the countries that experienced major famines in the past five decades have had command economies that theoretically should have been able to reallocate resources to invest in infrastructure. You're not accounting for limited local resources, government corruption, the existence of distinct polities, environmental and climate-based concerns, and a litany of other factors.

The main problem, from which all other problems stem, is that the food industry is for-profit. That is my criticism of it, that food is a free market commodity while you cannot live without it. And it does not need to be a free market commodity, because you can nationalize the whole thing.

I do not think a large-scale nationalization of the food-supply chain would be advisable. In developed countries, at the level of the individual farm or ranch, food is generally pretty inexpensive so long as the supply-chain isn't having issues somewhere else down the line and the government is implementing sensible regulations. It's a very competitive market sector. Additionally, nationalization alone wouldn't solve food shortages in countries that rely on foreign imports regularly or during times of famine. There are reforms that we could implement but I see no reason for a radical seizure of farms and ranches.

I don’t see why people would suddenly start dying if they were given a solid wage by a government rather than having to make a profit. Your solutions of funding NGO’s more is not a solution to hunger, it’s a solution to criticism levied at capitalism. But the capitalist market has already failed here, and it requires massive government aid to not cause an actual genocide. How is that a system worth protecting?

You're suggestion would simply shift the charitable donations from NGOs to governments but would do so while introducing inefficiencies into a highly efficient sector. The main issue in developed countries is that we need to subsidize transportation and retailers in less affluent areas, not that we need to directly control every step in the supply-chain. Governments have historically had a very poor record when it comes to nationalizing agriculture in the modern era.

The fact that you want to keep so-called revolutionary ideas (nationalizing the food industry is not really revolutionary or unfathomable but okay) away from agriculture tells me that you aren’t quite getting that the current system of food distribution is already causing massive casualties,

I'm apprehensive that revolutionary policies would cause even more casualties and that those casualties would be a lot closer to home.

which is somehow that is seen as ‘natural’ and ‘necessary’. A system in which 3 million people die of malnutrition each year, and wherein that number is a necessary evil, is not a system I want to maintain by smoothing over the edges.

Global hunger was declining for the last few decades. At the moment, climate change has made famines more frequent and dangerous. My point here, however, is that I'm reluctant to abandon a system that was alleviating the problem with a more radical one that could theoretically exacerbate it, especially given the past record of governments trying to control food from farm to plate. Welfare policies can fix starvation in our own countries and charity can make it less bad else-where. It's a band-aid but I'd rather have that than a lot of the alternatives that people have suggested in the past - often without adequate consideration of the consequences.

[Fahran]

Long hair in general needs to be purged.

I must stringently oppose this. Corona-chan gave me Disney princess hair and I will never let you purge it.

[Celritannia]

Long hair in general needs to be purged.

I must stringently oppose this. Corona-chan gave me Disney princess hair and I will never let you purge it.

I think he meant men with long hair, since mine comes down to my shoulder blades

[Cekoviu]

As a man, I can say man-buns are horrible and deserve to be purged.

Long hair in general needs to be purged.

Yes, for men, I agree.

Long hair in general needs to be purged.

I must stringently oppose this. Corona-chan gave me Disney princess hair and I will never let you purge it.

Ugh, lucky. I'm stuck with this stupid Brillo pad on my head that just refuses to grow long.

[Celritannia]

Long hair in general needs to be purged.

Yes, for men, I agree.

Awwww

[The New California Republic]

I must stringently oppose this. Corona-chan gave me Disney princess hair and I will never let you purge it.

I think he meant men with long hair, since mine comes down to my shoulder blades

Yes I meant men.

[Cekoviu]

Yes, for men, I agree.

Awwww

Sorry, it just really doesn't do it for me.

[Celritannia]

Awwww

Sorry, it just really doesn't do it for me.

But I like my long hair, I don;t have to do anything with it

[The New California Republic]

Sorry, it just really doesn't do it for me.

But I like my long hair, I don;t have to do anything with it

I don't have to do anything to mine either.

[Punainen Suomi]

There was no defence. South Korea only exists because of a US-backed coup that tore apart the People's Republic of Korea. Little known fact.

This Sounds like tankie nonsense to me. It was split between two armies after the defeat of Imperial Japan.

Read this and learn some history.

[Fahran]

There was no defence. South Korea only exists because of a US-backed coup that tore apart the People's Republic of Korea. Little known fact.

This Sounds like tankie nonsense to me. It was split between two armies after the defeat of Imperial Japan.

Because it is tankie propaganda. The PRK wasn't exactly the epitome of democratic governance and it was backed by the Soviet military apparatus. Mind you, Syngman Rhee wasn't democratic either but the illusion that any government in Korea at the time would have been palatable to liberal conceptions of sovereignty is silly. You got tankie autocrats or nationalist autocrats.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

A problem that preexisted capitalism and that would have been even more prominent before the advent of globalization in some cases.

Food has always been a for-profit market, so this is not an argument. World trade, too, does not require capitalism, and you skip over the fact that climate change, mainly caused by capitalistic growth, which we have known about since the eighties, has not been addressed, leading to increased risks of draught.

That's a bit simplistic given that a lot of the countries that experienced major famines in the past five decades have had command economies that theoretically should have been able to reallocate resources to invest in infrastructure. You're not accounting for limited local resources, government corruption, the existence of distinct polities, environmental and climate-based concerns, and a litany of other factors.

I am accounting for these things. I don't see why you would assume I am not. Of course, this solution would require international cooperation, I am not calling for autarky.

I do not think a large-scale nationalization of the food-supply chain would be advisable. In developed countries, at the level of the individual farm or ranch, food is generally pretty inexpensive so long as the supply-chain isn't having issues somewhere else down the line and the government is implementing sensible regulations. It's a very competitive market sector. Additionally, nationalization alone wouldn't solve food shortages in countries that rely on foreign imports regularly or during times of famine. There are reforms that we could implement but I see no reason for a radical seizure of farms and ranches.

And with all of that, still people die because of preventable starvation. You are making this system seem pretty good, while in reality, people are still starving. No-one should have to pay for the food required to keep them alive. International cooperation, nationalisation and the destruction of profit incentives for food distribution are required to solve this problem, which capitalism cannot solve. Nationalisation would not solve it magically, but at least it has a better chance than capitalism. Which basically says that, if the global economic model made you poor, you are punished with death.

You're suggestion would simply shift the charitable donations from NGOs to governments but would do so while introducing inefficiencies into a highly efficient sector. The main issue in developed countries is that we need to subsidize transportation and retailers in less affluent areas, not that we need to directly control every step in the supply-chain. Governments have historically had a very poor record when it comes to nationalizing agriculture in the modern era.

"A very efficient sector"

Three million children die every year while western countries throw away food by the truckload. That is not efficiency. That's only efficiency if you see profit at efficient. In that case, yeah, capitalism is very efficient, at the expense of everything else.

I'm apprehensive that revolutionary policies would cause even more casualties and that those casualties would be a lot closer to home.

I'm not talking about seizing land and giving it to experimental communes. Give it to a government, maximize food production and give people internationally the basic caloric intake they need every day. That's not revolutionary, as you yourself point out by saying it's close to creating large NGOs (with the added benefit that the state can use its tax money, while NGOs depend on charitable gifts).

Also, how tone deaf is that? It's not a problem when the far-away brown people starve by the millions. It's a problem when someone in my own country starves! Which is not going to happen, by the way, and you have not shown the method by which this nationalisation would lead to food scarcity. It would just make sure that people at least get their minimum caloric intake, which we can provide for everyone. And when we have the power to do so, but we don't because of some sense that the free market should provide the solution, we are killing these people by neglect.

Global hunger was declining for the last few decades. At the moment, climate change has made famines more frequent and dangerous. My point here, however, is that I'm reluctant to abandon a system that was alleviating the problem with a more radical one that could theoretically exacerbate it, especially given the past record of governments trying to control food from farm to plate. Welfare policies can fix starvation in our own countries and charity can make it less bad else-where. It's a band-aid but I'd rather have that than a lot of the alternatives that people have suggested in the past - often without adequate consideration of the consequences.

Likewise, I am apprehensive of the idea that people somehow find it less bothersome if people die from starvation because of the failures of capitalism than in another system.

For example, if we look at the Soviet bread lines, they were the result of a centrally-controlled economy which, for propaganda purposes, never raised the price of food, while increasing wages nominally by printing currency, which just caused hidden inflation. It was the whole economy being commanded that caused the bread lines. Mind that, even in the 1980s, there was no large-scale famine or starvation.

Look, centrally-planned command economies can both work and fail, depending on how competent the leadership is. But I am not calling for a command economy. I am calling for the nationalisation of food industries so starving people can get food they couldn't buy on the market. The food market will always be subject to market failure as long as people need food to live. There is always a risk invovled when changing systems, but the current system is just murderous.

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

food can be airlifted.

uhhhhhhhh

[Fahran]

Food has always been a for-profit market, so this is not an argument. World trade, too, does not require capitalism, and you skip over the fact that climate change, mainly caused by capitalistic growth, which we have known about since the eighties, has not been addressed, leading to increased risks of draught.

Well, that depends on whether you consider feudal agriculture to have been for-profit. With regard to world trade, I would argue that so long as modern states exist then any exchanges will result in the accumulation of capital, albeit by states instead of private persons. The solution to famines in other countries then would be, not trade, but charity and selling food at a loss or giving it away outright. Nationalizing the food sector does not mean that the sector will operate reliably, efficiently, and on a not-for-profit basis. And, as I've stated, we can more easily ameliorate the problems you pointed out by implementing other, less radical policies.

I am accounting for these things. I don't see why you would assume I am not. Of course, this solution would require international cooperation, I am not calling for autarky.

I never implied you were calling for autarky. My point here was more that you're essentially calling for charity orchestrated by the state. This doesn't even necessitate state-control of agriculture or the food industry. The state could simply operate in the existing market, buy up large quantities of food, and then ship them out to countries in need. The problem with this is conjuring the political will to actually do this. There's also no guarantee that hiccoughs and local corruption won't impede the delivery of food abroad.

And with all of that, still people die because of preventable starvation. You are making this system seem pretty good, while in reality, people are still starving.

I'm making the system sound good because a greater percentage of the world's population was starving before we implemented the current system which had a significant amount of success in reducing the severity and toll of famines globally. I'm expressing reluctance with your suggestion because, historically, large-scale state intervention in agriculture has had devastating effects and has precipitated large-scale famines in many places where it has been tried.

No-one should have to pay for the food required to keep them alive.

If the majority of people didn't pay for their food, shelter, and other necessities in some way, then we wouldn't have those necessities at all. State involvement doesn't mean free food. It means that food is paid for by the public instead of the private citizen. People still have to work to produce it and still have to receive some form of compensation beyond the produce they slave over - whether that be in the form of a nice new tractor, clothes, services, or cash.

International cooperation, nationalisation and the destruction of profit incentives for food distribution are required to solve this problem, which capitalism cannot solve. Nationalisation would not solve it magically, but at least it has a better chance than capitalism. Which basically says that, if the global economic model made you poor, you are punished with death.

Historically, famine has led to death regardless. It's not a punishment. It's an unsavory fact of a pre-globalized world in many cases. Your solution to the problem isn't really all that different from mine on the surface aside from the fact that you want the state to engage in charity instead of a combination of the state and NGOs. Robust state intervention in agriculture, as I pointed out repeatedly, has a sketchy record. It was a disaster in the Soviet Union and likely exacerbated the famines. I'm urging you to consider alternatives before implementing risky policies that could lead to more people dying of famine in the short-term without impacting the long-term death toll in the slightest.

"A very efficient sector"

Three million children die every year while western countries throw away food by the truckload. That is not efficiency. That's only efficiency if you see profit at efficient. In that case, yeah, capitalism is very efficient, at the expense of everything else.

Government involvement introduces a lot of inefficiencies as well, especially when poorly considered and ideological in its motivation. Three million people dying is a large number and I want to reduce it, but I'm apprehensive that your method would lead to more deaths and, depending on other factors, potentially famines in the West.

I'm not talking about seizing land and giving it to experimental communes. Give it to a government, maximize food production and give people internationally the basic caloric intake they need every day. That's not revolutionary, as you yourself point out by saying it's close to creating large NGOs (with the added benefit that the state can use its tax money, while NGOs depend on charitable gifts).

We can do this without seizing direct control of the means of production. Food is relatively cheap on its own. If government simply buys it and then redistributes it, it's a form of global welfare. Mind you, you're still going to run into issue with local governments in the developing world and government waste here, but those aren't going to trickle back into local agriculture more generally. We do not need nationalization to implement your plan by your own admission. We simply need a more charitable government.

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

the point is not to do something insane like just having the west buy calories from africa then give it back for free (???) but that developing countries can increase their calorific output

[Fahran]

the point is not to do something insane like just having the west buy calories from africa then give it back for free (???) but that developing countries can increase their calorific output

That doesn't work if countries have poor policies with regard to agriculture, are embroiled in civil wars, or if they're dominated by inarable land. Ethiopia, for instance, desperately needs agricultural and social reforms to shift from subsistence to surplus agricultural production. They also have historically had issues with lack of rainfall, locusts and caterpillars, and other issues, but the subsistence aspect is the one that makes these much, much worse. Famines do require an international response but I don't think socialism or nationalizations are really going to fix the problem. They're more of a red herring.

[Jack Thomas Lang]

I think the most sustainable solution is to provide the tools and education for local farmers to become more efficient and sustainable. Smallholder farms can produce a huge amount of food reliably given the right equipment and know-how, something I feel is often ignored by those who desire nationalisation of agriculture. IIRC the private sector in the Soviet Union was only a small percentage of total agriculture yet produced one-third of the USSR's food production.

[Fahran]

I think the most sustainable solution is to provide the tools and education for local farmers to become more efficient and sustainable. Smallholder farms can produce a huge amount of food reliably given the right equipment and know-how, something I feel is often ignored by those who desire nationalisation of agriculture. IIRC the private sector in the Soviet Union was only a small percentage of total agriculture yet produced one-third of the USSR's food production.

Improved technology and techniques would be a boon to subsistence farmers in places like Ethiopia but you'd probably still get the occasional famine given how arid the climate is. If there's a shift towards storing grains/cereals and other less perishable food items, that would do a lot to alleviate famines but there probably isn't an easy fix-all solution. Historically, local social organization hasn't really been conducive to non-substinence farming either, though I think that would change with an increase in capital-intensive farming.

[Jack Thomas Lang]

Improved technology and techniques would be a boon to subsistence farmers in places like Ethiopia but you'd probably still get the occasional famine given how arid the climate is. If there's a shift towards storing grains/cereals and other less perishable food items, that would do a lot to alleviate famines but there probably isn't an easy fix-all solution.

A part of it is helping farmers get their goods straight onto the market without the middleman. That way they can grow and store food to make a profit and invest into better technology and seeds, instead of just relying on subsistence farming.

[Fahran]

A part of it is helping farmers get their goods straight onto the market without the middleman. That way they can grow and store food to make a profit and invest into better technology and seeds, instead of just relying on subsistence farming.

I completely agree.

[Novus America]

This can be explained by a number of factors acting in concert as well. First, a lot of developing countries have insufficient food infrastructure. Honestly, a lot of urban and rural areas in developed countries have insufficient food infrastructure. Second, violence interrupts the regular flow of goods, including food, to combat zones and damages food-related infrastructure like fields, roads, butcher shops, grocery stores, markets, etc. Third, food remains a for-profit business - and, if farmers and ranchers are to survive on already low margins, it has to remain so. One option that is viable is changing the way in which the government regulates agriculture and how we deal with excesses of crops and livestock. Another is starting more NGOs and funding existing NGOs that buy and transport food to famine-stricken regions. If there's one place I want to keep the most revolutionary ideas away from, it's agriculture. Because that's how you get even more famines.

You’re applying band-aids over the canyon created by capitalism rather than truly seeking a lasting solution.

All but one of the problems you mention are solvable by willpower. Infrastructure can be built, food can be airlifted. The main problem, from which all other problems stem, is that the food industry is for-profit. That is my criticism of it, that food is a free market commodity while you cannot live without it. And it does not need to be a free market commodity, because you can nationalize the whole thing. I don’t see why people would suddenly start dying if they were given a solid wage by a government rather than having to make a profit. Your solutions of funding NGO’s more is not a solution to hunger, it’s a solution to criticism levied at capitalism. But the capitalist market has already failed here, and it requires massive government aid to not cause an actual genocide. How is that a system worth protecting?

The fact that you want to keep so-called revolutionary ideas (nationalizing the food industry is not really revolutionary or unfathomable but okay) away from agriculture tells me that you aren’t quite getting that the current system of food distribution is already causing massive casualties, which is somehow that is seen as ‘natural’ and ‘necessary’. A system in which 3 million people die of malnutrition each year, and wherein that number is a necessary evil, is not a system I want to maintain by smoothing over the edges.

How could this even work? Even if every individual country decides to nationalize their food industry then still solves nothing. Unless you had a global government that did it, and could somehow actually run the whole thing without any market mechanisms Soviet style, and not cause a Soviet style disaster how would you even do this?

And actually you can live without many foods, many foods are luxuries too. Only staple foods are necessities. And a private market can provide necessities just fine with public private partnerships and some level of government.

The problem is that different governments have very different an irreconcilable policies, and some are grossly mismanaged, something nationalization does not solve.

After all Venezuela nationalized much of its good production and distribution and it did nothing to help, it hurt.
Bad governance is the problem, giving bad governments more control does not fix it.