If you accept capitalism/wealth extraction is the natural state of the world, I’m sure calling it a cash crop starts to look like a meaningless distinction. (I’m not saying you do, but I also won’t say you don’t given the context)
I believe it’s worth noting that the mode of agricultural production that gives us wheat as a mass export commodity (often used as a tool for imperialist leverage against colonised peoples) does so for the sake of profit and not to feed humans.
It’s still not a cash crop though, you’re never goingto have a shitload of farmers growing wheat going OH NO WE OVER LEVERAGED INTO CASH CROPS AND NOW THERES A FAMINE
That’s also not the Irish famine though.
Irish peasants grew potatoes because it was more or less the only thing nutrient dense enough to sustain them, due to ever decreasing lot-sizes. Then potato blight + English landlords forcing continued export of food, despite an ongoing famine.
Arguing that someone is willing to pay for food, thus all crops are cash crops is like arguing capitalism has been around forever because people traded in the middle ages
No don’t you understand, potatoes are just a cash crop because they were sold for cash! I blocked the guy
Arguing that someone is willing to pay for food, thus all crops are cash crops is like arguing capitalism has been around forever because people traded in the middle ages
fucking exactly, this definition of cash crop literally would define any surplus of any crop as a cash crop. Your farm produces enough rice to sell? Ah you’re growing cash crops!! I’m getting angry that i even need to argue this
Sorry Im probably one of those users. Blame the devs though, I still need a disable inbox replies so i can stop being so mad about stuff on the internet, definitely not a me problem
Irish tenant farmers grew potatoes as a subsistence crop, while the wealthy landlords grew wheat and oats as a cash crop to export. It is in fact a great illustration how growing food by itself will not stave off a famine when the social relation demands that thousands must starve for a few to get even wealthier.
Re: your last point, I have been careful not to blame capitalism specifically in this thread. Wheat was grown as a cash crop in Ancient Rome. The development of the slaver latifundia system leading to the economic marginalisation of the plebeians was a major source of class conflict in their society.
Potatoes were the subsistence crop you smug ignorant dipshit. The landlords exported tons of and tons of wheat, barley and oats as cash crops even as thousands died from a preventable famine.
Go read my initial comment and tell me why might someone want to center the profit motive for crop production when discussing colonisation and global food security on a communist forum. It’s almost as if who owns the land and who chooses what to grow and where to send it has some bearing on the topic.
But no, you misunderstood a term and when corrected had to make it an entire thing instead of just learning and moving on. Also, miss me with the cope about AI hallucinations telling you you’re wrong. Maybe switch off the Forest Burninator 5000 and go look up a static resource to find out this is a term with decades of established use.
BTW the distinction you’re thinking of is food crops vs industrial crops.
If you accept capitalism/wealth extraction is the natural state of the world, I’m sure calling it a cash crop starts to look like a meaningless distinction. (I’m not saying you do, but I also won’t say you don’t given the context)
I believe it’s worth noting that the mode of agricultural production that gives us wheat as a mass export commodity (often used as a tool for imperialist leverage against colonised peoples) does so for the sake of profit and not to feed humans.
It’s still not a cash crop though, you’re never goingto have a shitload of farmers growing wheat going OH NO WE OVER LEVERAGED INTO CASH CROPS AND NOW THERES A FAMINE
I’ll take “what’s the Irish famine?” For 500
That’s also not the Irish famine though.
Irish peasants grew potatoes because it was more or less the only thing nutrient dense enough to sustain them, due to ever decreasing lot-sizes. Then potato blight + English landlords forcing continued export of food, despite an ongoing famine.
Arguing that someone is willing to pay for food, thus all crops are cash crops is like arguing capitalism has been around forever because people traded in the middle ages
No don’t you understand, potatoes are just a cash crop because they were sold for cash! I blocked the guy
fucking exactly, this definition of cash crop literally would define any surplus of any crop as a cash crop. Your farm produces enough rice to sell? Ah you’re growing cash crops!! I’m getting angry that i even need to argue this
Real cash crops have never been tried, youre just talking about cash croporatism.
Anyway Yeah I need breaks from hexbear once in a while due to how users like to act, so I can relate
Sorry Im probably one of those users. Blame the devs though, I still need a disable inbox replies so i can stop being so mad about stuff on the internet, definitely not a me problem
We’re all those users at different times. (Except for me of course). No worries
Irish tenant farmers grew potatoes as a subsistence crop, while the wealthy landlords grew wheat and oats as a cash crop to export. It is in fact a great illustration how growing food by itself will not stave off a famine when the social relation demands that thousands must starve for a few to get even wealthier.
Re: your last point, I have been careful not to blame capitalism specifically in this thread. Wheat was grown as a cash crop in Ancient Rome. The development of the slaver latifundia system leading to the economic marginalisation of the plebeians was a major source of class conflict in their society.
Weird how Ive never heard the Irish famine being blamed on “potatoes are a cash crop” until now as you nerds attempt to reinvent the term
Potatoes were the subsistence crop you smug ignorant dipshit. The landlords exported tons of and tons of wheat, barley and oats as cash crops even as thousands died from a preventable famine.
Go read my initial comment and tell me why might someone want to center the profit motive for crop production when discussing colonisation and global food security on a communist forum. It’s almost as if who owns the land and who chooses what to grow and where to send it has some bearing on the topic.
But no, you misunderstood a term and when corrected had to make it an entire thing instead of just learning and moving on. Also, miss me with the cope about AI hallucinations telling you you’re wrong. Maybe switch off the Forest Burninator 5000 and go look up a static resource to find out this is a term with decades of established use.
BTW the distinction you’re thinking of is food crops vs industrial crops.