Food production has advanced to such a degree that a substantial surplus is generated by only a fraction of the population.
We are not challenging advancements that support greater worker or resource efficiency, but rather the current systems that organize production and distribution, resulting in severe inequity and stratification across the population.
Under our current systems, the designation of someone as farmer may seem as ambiguous.
Labor in agriculture is provided by workers, often quite poor compared to many other workers. They are waged laborers who survive by selling their labor to agribusiness corporations. Such corporations are publicly traded, and ownership of stock is massively concentrated, the majority owned by an extremely narrow cohort of the population.
Even the few farmers who remain as working their own land have become massively restricted by the practices of the large companies on which they depend for equipment and supplies.
Food, once produced, is sold by grocers, also large corporations, to other workers who must purchase it from their own wages, from the sale of their own labor to other corporations.
The massive disparities reproduced through such systems have failed at the one objective most obviously essential for any society, of keeping the population free from needless death.
The massive disparities reproduced through such systems have failed at the one objective most obviously essential for any society, of keeping the population free from needless death.
This is blatantly false. I’m not even sure it a possibility for there to be famines.
You objected that supply of produced food is sufficient for the whole population, though such is already explained in the brief text of the post.
I explained that distribution is inequitable, to such a degree that many remain deprived, though such also was explained.
You also objected that capitalism has never been implemented in practice, though the obvious motive of the post, within the context of a tradition of criticizing capitalism, lasting now for approximately two hundred years, is to discuss actual problems that have been ongoing.
Indeed, the name for capitalism was given to describe a social system that had emerged, after it had emerged. If it never had emerged, then of course it never would have been identified or described.
What problems are you finding now, located in the post itself?
Food production has advanced to such a degree that a substantial surplus is generated by only a fraction of the population.
We are not challenging advancements that support greater worker or resource efficiency, but rather the current systems that organize production and distribution, resulting in severe inequity and stratification across the population.
Under our current systems, the designation of someone as farmer may seem as ambiguous.
Labor in agriculture is provided by workers, often quite poor compared to many other workers. They are waged laborers who survive by selling their labor to agribusiness corporations. Such corporations are publicly traded, and ownership of stock is massively concentrated, the majority owned by an extremely narrow cohort of the population.
Even the few farmers who remain as working their own land have become massively restricted by the practices of the large companies on which they depend for equipment and supplies.
Food, once produced, is sold by grocers, also large corporations, to other workers who must purchase it from their own wages, from the sale of their own labor to other corporations.
The massive disparities reproduced through such systems have failed at the one objective most obviously essential for any society, of keeping the population free from needless death.
This is blatantly false. I’m not even sure it a possibility for there to be famines.
Again, production occurs at surplus, but distribution is immensely stratified.
Please review my explanation over the difference between advances in production versus the social systems within which occurs the production.
Maybe we need to redo this meme then.
What would you recommend instead or as a change?
You objected that supply of produced food is sufficient for the whole population, though such is already explained in the brief text of the post.
I explained that distribution is inequitable, to such a degree that many remain deprived, though such also was explained.
You also objected that capitalism has never been implemented in practice, though the obvious motive of the post, within the context of a tradition of criticizing capitalism, lasting now for approximately two hundred years, is to discuss actual problems that have been ongoing.
Indeed, the name for capitalism was given to describe a social system that had emerged, after it had emerged. If it never had emerged, then of course it never would have been identified or described.
What problems are you finding now, located in the post itself?
The creator of this meme clearly has an issue with Food Producers.
You clearly have an issue with Food Distributors.