Agriculture under Socialism

AGRARIAN SOCIALISM GANG

Decentralised polycrop production and vertical gardens.

Yeah? Well how about this!

SAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE

if production is private, it is in your interest to be as productive as possible because your wealth is directly proportional to your productivity
if production is collective, your main interest is to get paid by the collective, you dont care about your personal productivity, you dont care about the quality of your labor, you dont care about working, you just want to receive from the collective and you want to avoid as much work as you can avoid, the whole thing becomes an unproductive race to the bottom

Food will be produced by people who want to produce food. Most likely the people who have been producing food under capitalism and feel that's how they can contribute best.

...

and what if this feelings based system fails to deliver? what if everyone simply decides to consume more than they produce?
market has well known mechanics for dealing with this: you dont have the money to buy a thing, but how is socialism going to deal with this?

if that is what socialism is, i am not investing myself into socialism

besides, if you are actually capable of robots and whatnot, you'd be much better off privatizing such things and using them for yourself than sharing them with technologically illiterate worthless masses

Surely those dirt poor peasants just have to work harder right.

That is literally what occurs under capitalism. You just described alienation and wage slavery. How can you mistake socialism for the opposite thing lmfao

If you don't have enough food production you starve. Do you think people want to starve?

Hort/Ag wageslave here. Let's take a look at this topic more closely.

We all know the USSR and China fucked up big time when it came to agriculture, whether it be famine or completely destroying the local ecosystem. What can we learn from their mistakes, as well as the mistakes currently being made by industrial capitalist agriculture?

To kill the Kulaks first then collectivize.

tell me, how much food have you produced so far? how do you imagine food production is done?
let me give you a hint: you cant "feel like it", you have to plan it for months in advance
you need to buy the "sewer solids" (shit, human shit for example is a high quality fertilizer), you need to take into account the minerals, air humidity, temperature, direct sunshine, stuff like that

there's really no "feeling like it" and historically speaking, food producers that didnt do the planning actually did starve
multiple times
no one does food production out of hobby
and yes you actually can starve because its not an obvious threat, like a lion, it sneaks up on you slowly and when you notice it, it is already waaaaaaaaaaaay too fucking late to do anything about it but starve

im from eastern europe, fam left me at the grandpas for one whole year, and crazy fucker said he loves me so much that he is going to give me the greatest gift on this earth
so he left me alone in a shack in a field one day and left me there for 3 months and not a day more, i had to be extremely careful about my time of digging the well, working the ground, planting the seeds, fertilizing and watering, because otherwise i would probably die
if i was doing things "how i feel like" i'd probably die and now i know this, its like this for everything in life

top plan

What a nice wall of text refuting stuff of no relevance to the discussion.
Of course food production takes planning, what is your point?

Shit son

First off: Scale back the production of meat, especially beef cattle. Far better to prioritize insect and algae protein rather than the wasteful enterprise of growing corn to feed to cattle.
Second, you want to start breeding hardier, disease-resistant crop varieties while maintaining collections of seeds and other germplasm. Climate change will make this especially important as pests and plant diseases change their movements.

But we should totally leave that to the market amirite lmao

I dont think you need to worry a lot about that in the first world. Almost all agriculture in north-western europe is done on an industrial scale, theres hardly any "small family run farms" with some kind of "secret information" that is essential to the success of it.

You just dont need to collectivise it and give the workers no power in how to run it, just like any other industry really.

wtf I asked about how food should be produced not soem wierd si-fi shit.

its the O N L Y way to learn

you know, i had a bit of a culture shock when i went to the west to get my masters (stuff like mathematics, physics, engineering etc etc is the same everywhere, same gravity, same electricity etc, so they take the best students from everywhere to do the masters there), but then i realized:
westerners allow females into their army, because there is no war to demonstrate them lower lung capacity, bone density and muscle mass of a female soldier
westerners do welfare and safety nets (science fiction where im from, people struggle or die), because they have no scarcity to demonstrate to them that some people are helpless and dying out is the most merciful thing to them
westerners have unproductive anti-family relationships, faggy males and disgusting hamplanet beast females, because their men dont have to be strong and brave cos there are no wars every 10 years, and the females can just marry the government and be set for life, while over here parents remind you since you can understand language that you have a duty
westerners think socialism is a good idea, cos they never did it
westerners think islam is a-ok, cos they never bordered it
westerners are pro diversity, because their law makers are all insulated from diversity, they are book academics up in their ivory towers in the clouds, oblivious to on-the-ground operational difficulties of flipping the switch and light happening almost in the same moment

your average westerner grew up in the bubble, sheltered by his daddy's money, and is tragically oblivious to the difficulties of real life
they grow up watching star trek, where a spaceship has like a critical malfunction, and instead of everyone dying almost instantly, they just fix it, somehow magically
you have your 20 year old women thinking they can actually still be fertile at 50, or feminism as you call it, so they commit suicide or live miserable childless existences at 30 when they realize they fucked up (and women have this insane children instinct/desire, i had this girl once over, we watched a movie, and there was a footage of some baby sleeping or some uninteresting shit to me, but she started crying with joy without even realizing it, because they are programmed to be children sensitive like that)

Yeah we should have wars that wipe out half the population and set us back 30 years because people are not manly enough.

It's not science fiction. Insects are consumed in many parts of the world, and spirulina has been recognized as a nutritious foodstuff for ages.

ты аутизт. убить себя.

what

нет, я говорим правду

it's the truth and you avoiding it isnt helpful to you in any way, it is like gravity, it does not sleep, you cant escape it, you must accept it in order to use it constructively

i dont know, it is very weird, i didnt spend a lot of time with women before so now i am noticing things
not just their tiny hands and soft skin and things like that that i had no idea, but mental things, they respond/behave differently around small children than men
but i have no interest in those things so i did not pursue them further

What you learned on that farm was not how society functions, but how to take care of land. You did not learn of the plight of the working class. You in a sense got to live out the petit bourgois dream, and it shaped your reactionary views.
Try working that land and having your landlord also take 80% of what you produce.

...

But you don't. When you have come here it is only to shitpost endlessly until banned, avoiding having to confront any post that argues against your 'position' and instead shutting off yours ears while screaming I WIN. Ты фиговый.

hey, it is not funny, i spent early childhood with grandmas and grandpas in villages where i didnt meet any girls, went to highschool for electricians where everyone was male, and always felt extremely uneasy and nervous around girls, didnt know what to say or do
but now after studying in cities with girls everywhere, it comes easy, city girls are easily impressed by engineering graduates who are tall and can bench 200 kilos, skin animals, fish without a line, etc

What if the robots are solar powered?

Yes it is. Your emotional trauma as a kid shows in your view of the world, where women are "others" to be taken and the weak deserve to die.

Are you a fucking Serb

its just physics
the weak gives way to the strong

equality is a false god, if you want to build something in this life, build it on a strong foundation, and there is no stronger foundation than strength itself
we can discuss mental gymnastics and "what about whatabaotism" all we want, but the ought will never change the is

there is a reason there is no communism/socialism outside of the posts here
you guys for example, check the post above, you can ask yourself "what if the robots are solar powered" or whatever the fuck else in the "what about whataboutism" category, but since none of you are going to actually build a solar powered robot farm, and run into operational difficulties, that can not be solved or sustained in the long term with "all equal" bullshit but pretty idealistic wishful thinking, you will never learn

sometimes, two persons are drowning, and you only have time to save one
so you pick the better person, and let the worse person drown
sometimes, the situation is like that, and it cant be helped
and being that better person beats the hell out of wishful 'whataboutism' thinking like 'what if we saved both persons'

You literally have no arguments

You see kiddos, only the strong survive!
People like Trump are the strong people we need. Tony abbott is one two. look at the leaders of this world
Powerful alpha males dominate everything in our society! We gotta take action NOW! We can't plan for the future with "What ifs". This sis why solar power robots don;t exist. What if we did all just take action! We should all get to work now! Get employed people! We need people in the supermarkets! We need people in the offices! Obey your bosses for they are the smart strong people that know all!
*fap fap fap*

the resources are objectively, empirically, measurably limited
if there is more people than resources
competition, usually brutal, just like in nature, happens for these resources
it is not in the interest of the strong to share what they can take from the weak, with the weak, and it never will be as long as laws of nature and physics are true

wishful thinking about sharing wont stop a starvation of the weak, and your greatest interest in this life is to become as capable, as productive, as knowledgeable, as prepared, as "strong" as you possibly can, and hope for the best on every time you are tested

so the world is "unfair" according to your subjective definition of what fair and unfair is, and i would even agree with you, but that is what makes is so beautiful and worth living

you are not entitled to the things you cant build and produce yourself
like healthcare
you simply arent entitled to the things you think you are entitled to
start your coup and demonstrate this to yourself already
or suffer your inadequacies for ever, works for me in either case

highly mechanised central planning of course

I would pick whoever I happen to like more and if they're complete strangers I would call the police and feign shock when they fail to save anyone.

Keep strawmanning me faggot.

Who is "the best"? You? Because your grandpa was a cock and you can benchpress 200 kilos and want people to starve? Big boy, you sure are the best!
You know sociopaths like you were exiled from tribes right? Human existance is about cooperation, loneworlves didnt exist. Human survival was build on caring for your neighbours in time of need so that they can care for you in time of need.

I know who I would save if I had to choose between two people drowning, and it isnt the guy shouting about how you shouldnt help the weak.

The one that wins. The one that survives. The one that prospers. The one that conquers.

If I figured out the mathematical equation of measuring "the bestness", I'd be "the best", and I wouldnt be posting here.
My only argument is that such a thing as "the best" exists. Im guessing you also think that as well. You simply think that "the best" is something that only a collective can achieve, while I think that "the best" is something only the best individual can achieve, because collectives have a collective tolerance for all things anti-"the best" while an individual can set his bar as high as we individually wants.

Ah ok. So its might makes right. In that case I can create a collective of people and force people to be equal.

You can't build your moral system of "society should be like this" on a basis of "whatever happens is the best". Which is what you try to do, you tell me what I ought to do. If I can "win" through communism, doesnt that make me better?

What's an instance of an individual doing something amazing without a large group of people assisting/supporting him?

Wait isn’t this a socialist board?

When a hyper-individualist kills themselves.

It is that guy is just a trigged slav with sociopathy.

It’s people who lived under socialism who think it’s good.

my point is that peak efficiency is desirable, and that collectivist anything can not achieve peak efficiency
if there exists a collective, which guarantees you a safety net, you wont be paying as much attention walking the rope

Which means everybody can afford to walk faster, some fall and try again, instead of clinging on for their lives, unable to make progress.

Efficiency in what you spergin serb? Cause capitalism is not efficient in allocating resources or ensuring all humans are adequately feed and sheltered. Capitalism is efficient at making profit.

While economics has a lot of bullshit, doesn't the idea of specialization being beneficial kind of hold true here? It had a technical name, but basically if people have one thing they're really good at, and people exchange/share the products of their labour, there's more for everyone than there would be if people are jacks of all trades. There's nothing to stop people pursuing other interests as a hobby/amateur but barring "muh automated gay space communism" you actually need some semblance of efficiency to ensure there's enough for everyone.

Never listen to black flags, however it's possible to retain the benefits of specialisation while not reducing work to one repeated task for 8 hours.

That's basically the issue, if something like socialism/communism isn't reached before we reach a level of technology that makes the vast majority of the workforce obsolete. There's nothing to stop those who own this capital just culling the masses and making their own form of communism, as clearly if they let everyone else join them they'd have a more modest lot in life. Why bother sharing? This is the issue with viewing society as a zero sum game, and the current system encourages everyone in it to view it that way.

How much of this efficiency is wasted in the current system producing nothing of any value to anyone? How many millions of workers are employed in advertising, accounting, or so many other business "jobs" that are a product of all the extra baggage the current system requires, or that just push numbers around without producing anything of value like currency traders? How much unneeded work is created by constantly striving for growth and selling new shit instead of reaching a comfortable existence and being happy with it? We always need bigger TVs, new smartphones that can run more complex shitty mobile games, and even if you don't think you do, the device you bought is designed to break down after a few years and need replaced. All just to create more pointless work for engineers and factory workers, and create more useless shit for you to buy.

On the question though, like said, there's nothing stopping a Socialist/Gommie system from pursuing efficiency. Everyone isn't going to live some bohemian lifestyle where they have a different job every day.

but why tho? that's my main problem here, why? why do all humans deserve to be fed and sheltered in your mind
in my mind resources are limited, which leads me to conclude that NOT ALL humans should be fed and sheltered

we discriminate what we eat because some things are nutritious and delicious while others are poison
we discriminate who we spend time with for very similar reason
the point is we discriminate, and discrimination produces desirable results

so why should we all of a sudden stop discriminating when it comes to extremely important, life sustaining, physically and measurably, empirically limited resources??????

Who do you think doesn't deserve to be fed or sheltered?

those who can not shelter and feed themselves in first world countries
i sure as fuck am not wasting any of mine preciously limited resources into figuring out who deserves what, that's a huge fucking waste, and as you know waste is again a huge no-no according to my world view because, again, resources are limited

therefore your top down central collectivist economy (that you can point anywhere on the map to exist) would waste 90% of the resources forcing the 10% of the most productive people to work harder
fucking hell those cold war commie states bragged how everything and everyone was an informer for the state, just how insane is this?

yeah, we want the prestige back, not the ideology, we want to be the world power again, not to pay lip service to equality, which ofcourse never existed, stalin and some mother that ate her children to survive didnt receive the same amount of anything

So since you specified first world countries, you think that those in second/third world countries are victims of circumstance, but anyone in their position in a first world country only has themselves to blame?

again, i care for the results
if you wont want your nation turned into plantation (even tho one could argue they had higher quality of life under colonial rule, apartheid sa has lower crime rates, rhodesia was comparatively a paradise in contrast with zimbabwe, etc) just fucking defend it better, you are not entitled to any national security if you cant defend yourself

the fact is that everyone did imperialism, all worlds, but first world simply did it better and that's why people who have nothing else to do blame first world for imperialism, you wont see them criticize africans selling each other to each other into slavery, nor will you find the scalping practices of native american criticized, nor does anyone care about the arab slave trade and violent conquest of the formerly christian middle east
no
only the first world is to blame, just like only the rich are to be blamed, primary motivator being jealousy, and pretense of equality just being convenient because you are inadequate

That was not the point my post. My point is that there are many many different ways something can be evaluated on its efficiency. I was asking you what metric you are judging something on its efficiency and why that metric is the one out of many that should measured any way.

The problem isn’t the amount resources. The problem is that the business class hord all the resources.

you are going on the route of subjectivism/relativism/whataboutism, that can only impotently criticize but can not build, can bitch and moan but not produce results or slam the meat on the table

just use the metric of existence, of survival, of being there, of being there hard enough, of being there enough that nothing else also being there can move it around, seize it, invade it, take it

if your failed coups didnt fail, than communism would be it

and why is that a problem?
also i'd like to point out that fortune 500 is dominated by engineers, by young, innovative problem solvers that people voluntarily want to do business with by owning their products in exchange for money
not some strawman monopoly cartoon carricatures that do not exist outside your mind

financial sector is failing, and private sector is more dominated by high problem solving capacity new blood than by old money financiers/owners who are slowly getting displaced

and inequality of wealth is caused by inequality of problem solving capacity, which makes wealth inequality fair, desirable even

...

Which Africans do you think sold the other Africans to slave traders? :^)

I don't plan on becoming aanother cog in another wheel under communism. I'm a communist because I want to abolish the division of labour. If you wanna be a bitch to the system, why don't you just become a fascist?

depending on what version of socialism that the person u ask happens to believe in…..
most state socialists view the idea of idea of collective farming monitored at the hands of the gov or agriculture directly ran by the gov

meanwhile other groups like AN-com/col believe it should controlled at the hands of decentralized collectives ran by workers

then there is an-sn of course that believes in collective agriculture controlled by aptly named "syndicates" of workers

In England, agriculture is pretty shit at the moment, despite being industrialised, and only produces 60% of the food we consume. Also, in a population of more than 66 million, all the agricultural land is owned by 36,000 people.

All land should be for common use, including agricultural land. A big part of Fields, Factories and Workshops by Kropotkin focuses on achieving agricultural autarky for the communes through technology and automation whilst also reducing socially necessary labour.