China seeks food security, but at what cost?
China seeks food security, but at what cost?
President Biden, please start bombing. My country yearns for hunger.
Is there a moral case against prohibiting any The Economist staff member from having access to writing materials of any kind? BEcuase I think, for the good of humanity...
Communism too much food?
Good for feeding people but not valuable
the maoist uprising against the landlords was the largest and most comprehensive proletarian revolution in history, and led to almost totally-equal redistribution of land among the peasantry
This reminds me of a quote from Catch-22, it has the same naked obsession with the 'rightness' of profit that reads like it isn't supposed to be satire but which I can't help be seeing as comedy:
Major Major's father was a sober God-fearing man whose idea of a good joke was to lie about his age. He was a long-limbed farmer, a God-fearing, freedom-loving, law-abiding rugged individualist who held that federal aid to anyone but farmers was creeping socialism. He advocated thrift and hard work and disapproved of loose women who turned him down. His specialty was alfalfa, and he made a good thing out of not growing any. The government paid him well for every bushel of alfalfa he did not grow. The more alfalfa he did not grow, the more money the government gave him, and he spent every penny he didn't earn on new land to increase the amount of alfalfa he did not produce. Major Major's father worked without rest at not growing alfalfa. On long winter evenings he remained indoors and did not mend harness, and he sprang out of bed at the crack of noon every day just to make certain that the chores would not be done. He invested in land wisely and soon was not growing more alfalfa than any other man in the county. Neighbors sought him out for advice on all subjects, for he had made much money and was therefore wise. “As ye sow, so shall ye reap,” he counseled one and all, and everyone said, “Amen." — Catch-22, Joseph Heller
The fact that The Economist has a clear set of ideological commitments means that it will pull the wool over its readers’ eyes in the service of those commitments, which saps it of intellectual worth. It will lie to you about the contents of a book by waving them away with a “that being so.” Or it will reassure you that capitalism has nothing to do with opiate deaths, by asserting without evidence that when “looked at more closely,” drug addiction is “less” about despair. It will fudge, fumble, and fool you in any way it can, if it means keeping markets respectable. And it will play on your insecurity as a resident of a former British colony to convince you that all intelligent people believe that the human misery created in “economically free” societies is necessary and just. It will give intellectual cover to barbarous crimes, and its authors won’t even have the guts to sign their names to their work. Instead, they will pretend to be the disembodied voice of God, whispering in your ear that you’ll never impress England until you fully deregulate capitalism.
So, then: Death to slavery. Death to injustice. Death to The Economist.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/05/how-the-economist-thinks
That perilous yellow haze in the photo proves it to be the work of that dastardly paragon of scientific cunning - the Fiendish Dr Food Munchu.
New China filter just dropped. China is neon orange now.
Libs coming to !the_dunk_tank@hexbear.net to be dunked on is one of the best features of federation
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.
