There is a spectrum haunting C-SPAM. I, on the contrary,

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > The Goodmine > There is a spectrum haunting C-SPAM. I, on the contrary,

LGD: Sep 25, 2004

Pener Kropoopkin posted:

Americans living in poverty would be astronomically benefited by a socialized food system, which would not need to make its foods chemically addictive for profit, and which would deliver a better range of nutritious foods to all Americans.

lmao yes, this proposal sounds like a winner

I look forward to my socialized p�t� that is literally inferior to American dog food in flavor and composition

# ¿ Jan 22, 2016 21:55

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 3, 2024 11:39

LGD: Sep 25, 2004

Pener Kropoopkin posted:

So in your mind socialized agriculture is like The Matrix?

In my mind socialized agriculture (and a socialized food production system) is what it has been like historically- i.e. absolutely dire. That wasn't a made up example, that was something Viktor Belenko (a Mig Pilot who defected in 1976) actually experienced. He was convinced the U.S. grocery stores he visited were Potemkin villages the CIA set up specifically for his benefit rather than entirely typical examples of things the citizenry had access to because the quality and variety of foods available was so high/large. He also accidentally bought canned dog food and happily consumed it before someone informed him of what he was doing. He deemed it superior to the canned food available to the populace of the Soviet Union.

see also: Yeltsin's 1989 trip to a Houston grocery store

LGD fucked around with this message at 22:12 on Jan 22, 2016

# ¿ Jan 22, 2016 22:07

LGD: Sep 25, 2004

Homework Explainer posted:

food selection for the petit bourgeois in the most economically advanced country on the planet was superior to that of a developing economy that still managed to go toe-to-toe with said country for much of the 20th century

color me surprised

yes it's true, it's my fault for ignoring all the countries that used centralized agriculture and food production systems that became known for the variety and quality of the food available to their citizenry such as ??? and ???

definitely not willful blindness on your part to see that there might be something worthy worrying about if the gap in the quality of consumer goods under centrally planned economies was so large that it routinely shocked the elites who experienced the difference

I'm sure it'd be different this time, despite all historical evidence and the lack of any plausible reasons

# ¿ Jan 22, 2016 22:37

LGD: Sep 25, 2004

Pener Kropoopkin posted:

And in my mind socialized agriculture looks more like Thomas Sankara's Burkina Faso, in which lands were redistributed to the peasants who worked them, while fertilizers and agricultural capital were provided by the government. Within 3 years Burkina Faso went from a food importer which relied on foreign aid, to a food exporter which had achieved food security for all Burkinabe.

when I tell you that a socialized food system would be wildly unappealing to the U.S. population at large due to quality issues and you respond by saying you're thinking about policies modeled on a country where 80% of the populace is engaged in rural subsistence level farming you're not really helping your case

edit: oh you added some more dumb poo poo

Pener Kropoopkin posted:

In the United States, agriculture has become so overwhelmingly Capital intensive that it's impossible for small farmers to exist anymore without permanently indebting themselves to the major agcorps. Agricultural lands are slowly being bought up and consolidated by these corporations, or tributized through debt payments and licensing agreements. It's getting to the point where the sheer scale of modern agriculture makes it impossible for farmers to survive, unless of course the brunt of the capital was being covered by society instead of banks and agcorps.

yes and there are reasons for that

however unless you fetishize small farmers (which you may) it's not really clear why this is inherently a problem, since the U.S. demonstrably doesn't have issues producing enough food in either quality or variety

agricultural subsidies to keep small farms from dying off are not usually associated with radical socialist change in America, they're actually a tentpole of conservative mainstream politics (and are actually garbage corporate welfare to people who are generally already well-off)

LGD fucked around with this message at 23:00 on Jan 22, 2016

# ¿ Jan 22, 2016 22:52

LGD: Sep 25, 2004

Pener Kropoopkin posted:

The whole nature of the problem that we've been bringing up is that the ability of the capitalist system to produce a variety of quality goods was never in question, the issue is the ability of the system to distribute those goods where they are most needed. I posted multiple links to qualified sources about the food security crisis in the United States of all places, and major issues of quality with foods that are available to the poor; but then your eyes glazed over and you started blabbing about a Soviet defector eating dog food.

which is why you said that a socialized food system would deliver a better range of foods than the current system and then when I pointed out that centralized food distribution systems had historically been godawful you said you had been thinking of a land reform and subsidy program in a country where the population exists by doing subsistence farming

food security issues are largely a matter of insufficient income, something that is very easy to address (in a technical sense) via transfer payments, the problem being political will

however instead of advocating for that you're suggesting we need to completely alter the way we handle agriculture and food production so that the poorest among us will have access to "properly" nutritious foods (something that by your rhetoric very obviously has nothing to do with macro-nutrient intake and quite a bit to do with mandating food choices on a society-wide level)

gee it sure is a mystery why I'd think examples from the most economically advanced empire that tried to do centralized food production on an industrial scale and ended up producing culinary horrors would be relevant

you are a colossal loving idiot

# ¿ Jan 22, 2016 23:32

LGD: Sep 25, 2004

Pener Kropoopkin posted:

Transfer payments via programs like SNAP may solve the issue of accessibility without addressing the issues of dietary choice, which is why I specifically brought up the common practice of making cheap foods chemically addictive - as that is a highly profitable practice. One way or another, the for-profit system ensures that millions of people won't be able to meet adequate dietary needs either through the lack of accessibility, or through the cultivation of unhealthy eating habits. Simple transfer payments are insufficient in addressing the issue, not unless you're also delivering a basket of goods which guarantees nutritional availability to all households.

How much do you actually know about this poo poo? Transfer payments is a broad label that covers far more than just food stamps, and they've done actual studies on the impact of food deserts. Most of the evidence points toward them having a negligible influence- I think grocery store location accounts for something like 10% of the difference in eating habits. You solve this problem by actually having a robust social welfare system and jobs that provide adequate wages so that people can make their own choices, not by making sure people get their monthly shipment of government kale.

# ¿ Jan 22, 2016 23:59

LGD: Sep 25, 2004

Pener Kropoopkin posted:

Never said anything about food deserts, only bringing up the issue of the for-profit system cultivating poor eating habits.

Homework Explainer posted:

do you know what a food desert is

quote:

You can talk about people being empowered to make their own choices all you like, but without a massive public - dare I say - re-education program, there's no guarantee that they will even make the right ones. Michelle Obama tried guaranteeing access to nutritionally dense foods for schoolchildren, and she was called a Communist Fascist Dictator.

I don't really care that people all make the "right" choices, you don't really care that you're advocating a system that produces food that is worse than we feed to our pets. I'm pretty ok with where I stand on this issue.

quote:

You bring up the issue of political will without considering that political resistance to an expansion of the welfare state is being cultivated by the capitalist system. What happens if the welfare state is being undermined gradually over time, and is eventually dismantled because of political forces which are shaped by capital? European countries with strong social welfare programs have been backsliding into Austerity for a decade, often in spite of public opinion. Engaging in constant struggle with the political Right only invites the cyclical declines of public health which are endemic to capitalism.

As opposed to the robust history of successful implementation, lack of political infighting, and non-abuse that we've seen in countries that have adopted centralized food production and distribution systems? Politics exists, it is a thing, and the notion that we will achieve communism and history will end in a perfect stasis is actively delusional. Personally I think the system that produces high quality foods and consumer goods that offer people choice is the one that will prove more resilient vs. a centralized system oriented around making sure everyone gets an equal portion of the "right" stuff. History would seem to back me up here, since it has been the hyrbid democratic-capitalist nations that have buried all the attempts at communism while delivering a higher standard of living to the average citizen.

I mean your central complaint right now is that capitalism is making our poorest too fat. It's true, and a social problem we need to address but lol

# ¿ Jan 23, 2016 00:30

LGD: Sep 25, 2004

Homework Explainer posted:

that's not a response to you

edit: you're right, I hosed up- shitposting at work at lost track of who posted what

quote:

the obesity epidemic isn't proof of capitalism's success, holy poo poo lol

modern society produces so many excess calories so cheaply that the very poorest members of modern society are in vastly greater danger of developing health problems due to over-consumption of non-staple foods than they are of starving to death

it's absolutely a social problem and hardly an unqualified triumph, but I don't really know how you can look at the sweep of human history and all of the varied economic and political systems that have been tried and not consider it a success of a sort

LGD fucked around with this message at 00:55 on Jan 23, 2016

# ¿ Jan 23, 2016 00:47

LGD: Sep 25, 2004

Pener Kropoopkin posted:

I never advocated for the Soviet system, so congratulations on destroying a straw man. There are as many different forms of Socialism as there are for transfer payments. The problem is developing a system which works within the context of existing society, not to try and develop a one-size-fits-all universal model, which is the purport of capitalism.

no you specifically advocated for a system of land re-distribution to subsistence farmers, you haven't actually provided any model of a socialized industrial agricultural system- however you assure me that it'll be great just as soon as it's developed

any attempts to bring up examples from the failed real world attempts to implement such a system are clearly straw men to be dismissed out of hand

quote:

LOL it's so great to live in a system where people can be nutritionally starved, and yet still grow obese and develop severe health complications. LMAO loving LOOOOOL.

since they also exist within a system where it's entirely possible to use the same resources to eat in a healthy manner, yeah it's a pretty sweet time and place to be alive historically speaking

Pener Kropoopkin posted:

It is absolutely not a success, because developmental disorders arising from nutritional deficiency have a tendency to make people stupid. It plagues them all throughout their adult lives. The argument you're making here is that it's ok to compound human misery so long as the death rolls stay low.

and the argument you're making is that the current state of affairs is terrible compared to an imagined ideal- I agree, it is! however you really haven't established why we need to radically revise our entire food production system in the (nebulous) way you're suggesting in order to solve this issue (especially since the problems seem to be highly linked to disposable income)

I also don't think you're being realistic in your appraisal of scope and sweep of the developmental disabilities caused by poor diet in modern societies relative to the issues caused by the diets that human societies have been eating historically

Bryter posted:

capitalism is a global system, and membership of "modern society" is broader than you appear to believe.

so are we advocating for a globally socialized food production and distribution system now?

LGD fucked around with this message at 01:27 on Jan 23, 2016

# ¿ Jan 23, 2016 01:04

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 3, 2024 11:39

LGD: Sep 25, 2004

Pener Kropoopkin posted:

And I could just as easily point to the dismissive attitudes with regard to the artificial starvation conditions inflicted on the 3rd World by global capitalism. Socialized agriculture has real success when it comes to creating self-sufficient systems that solve the issue of food insecurity.

I don't think I've been dismissive of socialized agriculture in agrarian societies at all, I've just been incredibly dismissive of your attempts to point to it and exclaim "see socialized agriculture works!" while completely ignoring the huge differences between a society of subsistence farmers and the modern West

if you want to argue land reform, protectionism and seed-sharing programs are a better policy than letting wealth concentrate while exposing a country to the full-bore global market I'm not going to argue with you, I'm just going to be really skeptical that it's in any way a good example for the developed world

quote:

The issues with our agricultural system are multivarious. Not only does it generate an incredible amount of waste, it fails to adequately distribute nutritional foods to the populations which are the most in need. On top of that it engenders a consolidation of power over the production system into an ever smaller circle of private hands, which profit from the labors of farmers due to the excessive demands of capital intensive methods. It also has an incredibly negative environmental impact due to industrialized methods of meat production, which produce an over-abundance of low quality meat, while generating massive amounts of greenhouse gasses and useless biowaste. Being able to adequately address these issues won't be possible while tying ourselves to a for-profit system of agriculture, because these developments were driven with profit in mind.

The ability of people to access the food is only one element of the problem, although it is the one most immediately concerning because millions of people are still technically starving, even if their caloric intake is met.

again you're comparing an existing society to an imagined ideal that isn't even close to being fleshed out, except that you're sure the problems will be solved because the incentives will be different

they will, but that's not going to prevent this grand new system from having its own problems (many caused by the different incentives at work) that it will need to address

and while it'd be nice to think we could just switch to a command economy and decree these problems out of existence, nearly all of the evidence we have points to command economies loving things up worse for the man on the street than hybrid-market economies tend to

given the much better job market economies do generating wealth it seems far better to work to build a system that ameliorates the excesses than to tear everything down in the certain knowledge that we're going to get it right this time

LGD fucked around with this message at 01:48 on Jan 23, 2016

# ¿ Jan 23, 2016 01:45

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > The Goodmine > There is a spectrum haunting C-SPAM. I, on the contrary,