Do you support supermarkets that love making huge profits and sell meat and dairy from the factory farms you talk about?
1 Like
Interview with Sandi Adams (posted her stuff here last year)
Sandi Adams - the authoritarian greens and the great reset 2030 agenda
Looking at the plans for the coming reset and corporate fascism for the useless eaters in Australia:
1 Like
Tyson Foods dumped millions of pounds of toxic pollutants directly into American rivers and lakes over the last five years, threatening critical ecosystems, endangering wildlife and human health, a new investigation reveals.
Nitrogen, phosphorus, chloride, oil and cyanide were among the 371m lb of pollutants released into waterways by just 41 Tyson slaughterhouses and mega processing plants between 2018 and 2022.
1 Like
My goodness, if only there were a way to produce food without polluting the environment. No doubt the solution involves Communism.
2 Likes
Do you hate capitalism? Do you support state-controlled food distribution centres?
Please explain your alternate distribution system.
Do you support billions of people starving to death? If we immediately switched over from agribusiness to farmers growing pesticide- and artificial-fertilizer free crops on individual plots, the result would be world-wide mass starvation. Yes, we have to wean ourselves away from industrial-type food production, if only to rein in global warming (oh, right, you don’t believe in that either).
2 Likes
I can never tell when you’re being facetious or when you’re trying to make a serious point, but in either case, how exactly would anybody magic up these millions of individual farmers, toiling away in Marxist paradise? It takes years to become competent at farming, and unless there’s some incentive for a young person to start off on that path, why would anybody bother? If the authorities are announcing policies to arbitrarily repossess land because of climate change (as per @Cake’s video) why would anyone except an oligarch see farmland as a sensible investment? When the rules are set up to essentially forbid any use of land except either (a) large-scale industrial farming or (b) ‘re-wilding’ schemes that produce nothing, how would an individual even come up with a sensible career trajectory?
The Great Reset has the overt goal of preventing any kind of farming, and replacing it with some as-yet-uninvented food-factory technology that runs on unobtainium. There aren’t going to be any Soviet-style or Maoist farming collectives, but the underlying principle is exactly the same: corral the peasants into some bureaucrat’s unhinged vision of how the food supply is supposed to work, and use force to make sure they comply however badly it fails.
2 Likes
Apologies if offside, did not watch the videos. Just thought of pointing out: Marxism is a critique of the class domination implicit in capitalism, and ownership of means of production. It is not stipulation of how to organise means of production or processes. As such, technical expertise, competence, organisation are not incompatible with it.
Worldwide hunger and malnutrition are already a thing:
The scale of the current global hunger and malnutrition crisis is enormous. WFP estimates – from 78 of the countries where it works (and where data is available) – that more than 333 million people are facing acute levels of food insecurity in 2023, and do not know where their next meal is coming from. This constitutes a staggering rise of almost 200 million people compared to pre-COVID-19 pandemic levels.
At least 129,000 people are expected to experience famine in Burkina Faso, Mali, Somalia and South Sudan. Furthermore, any fragile progress already made in reducing numbers risks being lost, due to funding gaps and resulting cuts in assistance. The global community must not fail on its promise to end hunger and malnutrition by 2030.
WFP is facing multiple challenges – the number of acutely hungry people continues to increase at a pace that funding is unlikely to match, while the cost of delivering food assistance is at an all-time high because food and fuel prices have increased.
Unmet needs heighten the risk of hunger and malnutrition. Unless the necessary resources are made available, lost lives and the reversal of hard-earned development gains will be the price to pay.
A global food crisis | World Food Programme
The global nutrition crisis we faced even before Covid-19[1] has become far worse, with worrying trends across every form of malnutrition, from hunger to obesity. People affected by hunger leaped by 150 million since the Covid-19 outbreak, from 618 million in 2019 to 768 million in 2021, while those unable to afford a healthy diet[2] rose by 112 million to 3.1 billion in 2020 alone.[3] Almost a third (29.3%) of the world’s population, 2.3 billion people, were moderately or severely food insecure[4] in 2021, up from 25.4% before the pandemic.[5] At the same time, what we eat across the world continues to fall short of the minimum standards for healthy and sustainable diets[6] with resulting obesity and diet-related non-communicable diseases (NCDs) on the rise and at epidemic levels – around 40% of all adults and 20% of all children are now overweight or obese.[7] Policy interventions to date are failing to reverse these trends, while conflict around the world – including the recent war in Ukraine – and the impacts of climate change, which are key drivers of increases in malnutrition, continue unabated.[8] It is countries faced with food and nutrition insecurity,[9] and the most vulnerable populations, that are threatened the most.
https://globalnutritionreport.org/reports/2022-global-nutrition-report/executive-summary/
There is more than just science and technologies at play.
Welll … yeah, but the fact that all countries that professed to be “Marxist” during the 20th century followed extremely similar paths, suggesting that even if Marx wasn’t explicit about the way things should go (and TBH I think he was) his ideas clearly lead in only one direction when it comes to execution … in both senses of the word.
FWIW I think Marx was actually correct about several things, but like most intellectuals who discover that they’re onto something, he got rather too invested in his ideas and tried to turn them into a theory of everything.
But they are incompatible, for the simple reason that there is no incentive for anyone to be competent, or to develop expertise, or to organize things well - apart from a sense of human propriety, of course, which tends to be suppressed in real-world Communist societies along with everything else.
I think most of the conspiracy theorists in this thread are aware of these numbers, and for me personally the red mist descends every time I’m reminded of them. The people who did this committed crimes against humanity. There is really no other descriptor that fits. And as for this:
Policy interventions to date are failing to reverse these trends
That is not true. Policy interventions" have not merely “failed to reverse” anything. They’ve actively made these problems worse. And when you find that something you’re doing is making something worse, the obvious course of action (if you’re well-intentioned) is to bloody well stop it already.
However, they knew perfectly well what would happen, and the fact that they’re still doubling down on measures guaranteed to cause poverty, food insecurity, supply disruptions, and a whole bunch of other negative consequences suggests that these are the desired outcomes.
Consider that politicians are effectively in the business of professing certain world views whilst walking a different path, and mostly doing a good job of covering their tracks. Add in some path dependency and interactions at the state-level, and the picture gets very messy pretty quickly 
The same could be said about religions as well.
Human language (speech and the written word) unfortunately lacks the precision of mathematical language, which leads to interpretation, and claims of expertise at interpretation.
Although my quote was to point out the persistence of hunger and malnutrition, interrogating the policy prescriptions thereon is problematic in more ways than one, especially considering the policymakers are marking their own exam papers.
Not quite: Marx viewed socialism as the next stage after capitalism, with capitalism being a precondition for socialism. Consider for example: what would you have for shared ownership if you had not harnessed capitalism’s industrial production efficiencies? The transition would materialise through collective and democractic ownership and control of the means of production. (cough, cough - this is one page that was borrowed by you know who). This would be necessitated by capitalism’s inherent contradictions: generating economic growth and technological advancement while engendering inequality, alienation and social injustice. Marxism thus can be seen as an socio-economic theory that focuses on historical development and social change, whilst communism, socialism, democracy, autocracy, republicanism, and capitalism are political systems.
Capitalism - 20th Century mindset.
I dislike corporatism, which you back unbeknownst to you, I would guess.
State controlled food distribution? Another 20th Century mindset. PPP distribution is what is coming - 3D printed meat, sludge made in factories a la Soylant Green as farms are forced to close. Does that solution make you feel good?
I don’t have a ‘distribution system’.
No, but those at the helm probably do.
Finley addressed that.
A club of Rome construct designed to continuously scam the serfs.
Now to introduce a new financial system which will monetize nature and control assets. They use computer models which have continuously produced clap trap. The same groups that are running the scam run the coal and oil industry.
And the correct term as the head of the UN said last year is GLOBAL BOILING! Not global warming.
2 Likes
Didn’t go as planned.
The Forestry and Nature Conservation Agency faces a maximum fine of NT$200 million (US$6.16 million) if it is found to have sold lychee giant stink bugs at an insect-eating event.
The Chiayi branch of the Forestry and Nature Conservation Agency recently held the “King of Insect Eaters” event, where lychee giant stink bugs (Tessaratoma papillosa) were fried and eaten. However, it is not a legally designated edible insect.
https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/news/5683962
Government fining themselves 
4 Likes
No doubt the government will have to hire expensive legal counsel to defend themselves against themselves.
2 Likes
As the world looks for more eco-friendly food sources, activists say it’s time for Taiwan to embrace its history of eating insects and change the country’s current food regulations.
“it’s time for Taiwan to embrace its history of eating insects”
???
For Taiwan they probably mean it in the context of this:
2 Likes
What a fuckin nothingbuger of a post. Lmao.
-
answers the first question with nonsense which does nothing to address position
-
no, ofc im against [thing], which you support (because you’re a sheep). The connection between these things is tenuous at best, but it’s the closest this particular post will get to actually responding to mike’s post.
-
another deflection, followed up by some semi relevant nonsense about meat goo. Does nothing, once again, to actually address the base concern. But whatabout’s right around the question for at least the second time.
Mike: Cows are treated bad. Agriculture isn’t the happy happy happy industry with idyllic cows grazing in the fields and chickens hopping about in the meadows
Cake: but uhh… Oh yeah, the supermarkets, you hypocrite.
Mike: well, what do you suggest as an alternative? (the comment was, of course , not really related, but takes this and goes with it. A mistake, but we’ve all made this one).
Cake: you’re a corporatist sheep, something something old think, what about meat goo
- “I don’t have a ‘distribution system’” - the ultimate slap in the face, reminding you that you wasted your time. Get accused of some moral transgression and hypocrisy as a whataboutist move since – so eh, just throw some random meat goo shit in. It’s not related to the issue of distribution - which was the first what about provided - but instead a whatabout for the whatabout.
Meta-whataboutism. Nabokov would be proud.
Please, no need for such an inflammatory post. Think of this thread as their safespace. If you can’t post respectfully here, don’t expect reasonable responses 
Full disclosure, I only read the first and last paragraphs
1 Like