I literally have the high ground and I’m prepared to cut off your legs as you flip around trying to say “I DON’T NEED TO SOURCE IT, YOU SOURCE IT” and then I spam you with every dictionary, article, Wikipedia article. Leaving you to smoulder and moulder in this thread.
Cash crops are agricultural products that are grown for the purpose of sale and profit. These crops are typically grown on a large scale, using advanced farming techniques and machinery to maximize yields and profits. Examples of cash crops include cotton, tobacco, coffee, tea, sugarcane, and cocoa.
A cash crop, also called profit crop, is an agricultural crop which is grown to sell for profit. It is typically purchased by parties separate from a farm. The term is used to differentiate a marketed crop from a staple crop (“subsistence crop”) in subsistence agriculture, which is one fed to the producer’s own livestock or grown as food for the producer’s family.
Find a source using your made-up definition. If you want to make a new term for it go ahead, but do not pretend it’s what cash crop means and has meant forever.
Referent to my other point - the US government subsidises it’s own unprofitable wheat farmers, who dump their excess on the global market in return for cash crops grown by Kenyan farmers (encouraged by the IMF demanding elimination of domestic Kenyan subsidies), fostering dependence on Western markets.
The leverage on farmers to produce surplus for cash payment is the problem, not that “non-food crops” is somehow more exploitative than food crops. In India, had they grown wheat instead of cotton they still would have starved because the taxes levied on them by the british government would have forced them to sell it off anyway.
not that “non-food crops” is somehow more exploitative than food crops.
Food dependency is intimately linked with sovereignty, a state that cannot feed itself except by exporting cash crops to Western states is in a materially different position to once that focuses on food sovereignty.
it’s literally a cash crop to the farmer if they’re making money from the us gov’t subsidies. i think people here think “cash crop” is an intrinsic quality of the item and not a social relation, as per Marx et al.
Find a single source using your definition and not mine/ours.
I literally have the high ground and I’m prepared to cut off your legs as you flip around trying to say “I DON’T NEED TO SOURCE IT, YOU SOURCE IT” and then I spam you with every dictionary, article, Wikipedia article. Leaving you to smoulder and moulder in this thread.
No thanks i’ll just block you
https://anthropologyreview.org/anthropology-glossary-of-terms/cash-crops-grown-for-sale/
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/cash-crop
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash_crop
Try feeding your entire family, let alone an entire society on cotton, tobacco, coffee, tea, sugarcane, and cocoa.
There is an obvious difference between wheat, even if grown for sale, and crops like indigo.
Find a source using your made-up definition. If you want to make a new term for it go ahead, but do not pretend it’s what cash crop means and has meant forever.
Still waiting for an actual source here.
Corn and wheat, famously so profitable the government pays no subsidies for farmers to grow them at all.
https://www.agrolatam.com/crops/nigeria-us-wheat-kansas-trade-mission/
Referent to my other point - the US government subsidises it’s own unprofitable wheat farmers, who dump their excess on the global market in return for cash crops grown by Kenyan farmers (encouraged by the IMF demanding elimination of domestic Kenyan subsidies), fostering dependence on Western markets.
The leverage on farmers to produce surplus for cash payment is the problem, not that “non-food crops” is somehow more exploitative than food crops. In India, had they grown wheat instead of cotton they still would have starved because the taxes levied on them by the british government would have forced them to sell it off anyway.
Food dependency is intimately linked with sovereignty, a state that cannot feed itself except by exporting cash crops to Western states is in a materially different position to once that focuses on food sovereignty.
The IMF knows this, so should we.
they’re still food dependant no matter what they’re growing
it’s literally a cash crop to the farmer if they’re making money from the us gov’t subsidies. i think people here think “cash crop” is an intrinsic quality of the item and not a social relation, as per Marx et al.