• I would consider those cash crops yeah because those are the intended purposes and a lot of it can’t even be used for human consumption even if you wanted to. Wheat has industrial uses (literally everything does) but I’ve never heard of it being grown on anywhere near the scale of those for those purposes

      Anyway Google’s lying machine says i’m wrong but i still disagree

    • 小莱卡@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      21 days ago

      The commodity is, first of all, an external object, a thing which through its qualities satisfies human needs of whatever kind. The nature of these needs, whether they arise, for example, from the stomach, or the imagination, makes no difference. Nor does it matter here how the thing satisfies man’s need, whether directly as a means of subsistence, i.e. an object of consumption, or indirectly as a means of production.

      all crops that are sown to be sold on the market are commodities, wrongly named cash crops.

      • nohaybanda [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        21 days ago

        While I’ll concede that commodity better captures the social relation, I disagree that cash crop is somehow the wrong name. In the context of my initial comment it worked well enough, I thought.

        In any case, I’m gonna drop this, we’ve gotten way past constructive discourse here. I did appreciate your contributions though.