/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>1857535
>so, how do we operate centralized, mechanized and highly efficient agriculture with quality food yields without destroying the fuck out of the environment?
regenerative agriculture, which also helps sequester carbon and fight desertification and potentially even regulate temperature and moisture
>most destructive agricultural practises seem to be directly related to its industrialization/centralization of capital flow (methane emissions, agrotoxics, fertilizers, monocultures)
This is an illusion due to the fact that capitalism (not industrialism) operates on the logic of maximizing profit. It doesn't matter if you could do agriculture in a more efficient way by mulching waste products on site and returning them to the soil, and growing supplementary plants in the off-season. There's a synthetic fertilizer industry with a product to push, and a waste disposal industry to come remove all that organic matter that you could have processed into fertilizer. It doesn't matter how nonsensical a practice is, if you can generate a profit from it and convince (or force) people to engage in it, capitalism will do it.

>>1856805
environmentalists might start waking up if they realize the new cold war has eco-friendly technology in its crosshairs.

>>1857535
Everybody MUST be involved in the process of food production via food forests and permaculture. if you do not work, you shall not fucking eat.

>>1857560
So the West is finally revealing their final ghoulish masque of death, eh?
Literally all of them uniting as Climate Behemoth, upholding fossil fascism and choosing to annihilate the world

>>1857535
>>1857597
>retvrn to even more environmentally destructive forms of food production under the guise of environmentalism
god i hate these far too frequent shit takes. whats the point of capitalism socializing the means of production then

>>1857556
lets not forget the literal tons of food that are destroyed every single day because they just didnt get sold

>>1857600
Nothing has thus far proven as destructive as industrial farming

>>1857603
lol every single person in this 7bn world keeping their own personal farm would be far worse than the methods used today. you literally want to return to feudalism

>>1857604
what's wrong with a simple garden? can't everyone have a simple spice garden?

>>1857600
>>1857604
you literally don't even fucking know what you're talking about, you're just being contrarian and arguing to argue. You don't know as much about ecology, permaculture, agroforestry, and regenerative farming as me and you should shut the FUCK up or come into the matrix chat and talk to me and get schooled you fucking retard.

>>1857604
You’re just a coward with no imagination and industrobuggo

>>1857607
>>1857609
>everyone who disagrees with me is a contrarian therefore i dont have to bother arguing back
do you even know how economies of scale even work

>>1857612
The whole fucking point is that isn't not a return to feudalism, it's can literally be a collective, socialized effort. And if you think regenerative farming and permaculture methods are "environmentally destructive" then you're literally just an ignorant uneducated fuck and you shouldn't be speaking on this fucking topic, the whole point IS THAT ITS FUCKING REGENERATIVE AND LOW INPUT/LOW LABOR YOU ABSOLUTE RETARD

>>1857612
Industrial farming is for bugmen, like ants tending to fungal farms
Solarpunk farming is proletarian

>>1857617
ants are proletarian and fungal farms are what soviet collectivized farming literally looked like though

>>1857597
the solution is not small property
>>1857600
i dont want to retvrn to anything and thats why i asked how to build a bridge between industrial mechanized agriculture and the environment

>>1857628
>the solution is not small property
What are you fucking talking about?
>>1857628
>i dont want to retvrn to anything and thats why i asked how to build a bridge between industrial mechanized agriculture and the environment
You're not getting it, you're the one who wants to "return" to industrialized agriculture rather than move on to actual environmental methods that can produce a ton of food. rather than move on to a truly socialized form of agriculture. You just want to do exploitative capitalist agriculture that is only viable because of fossil fuels but make it "more socialist"
You are being reactionary on this issue.

>>1857631
I don't doubt there will be better ways to mass produce food in the future, especially under communism, but it's kind of pointless to get into heated debate as capitalism is the main roadblock, as always, so it will remain as fun trivia until we get there.

>>1857633
Because he's spreading misinformation and being a useful idiot for capitalist agriculture. I'm so fucking sick of misinformation. It's everywhere and it just spreads like a fucking virus. I'm sick of constantly having to argue with people who literally have NO IDEA what they're talking about as they try to insert their foul fucking wrong opinions into everything

>>1857635
That's fine, but I think it would be useful to at least link to more information on the matter. If you already did, then disregard this.

>>1857636
I didn't, I was agitated. Lol.

>>1857631
>permaculture
>muh ancestral methods
>everyone needs to participate
industry is centralized capital. its the foundation of modern means of production. is this a joke? if your "environmental methods" actually were more productive the bourgeois would switch to them in a pinch
not only you are ignoring the usage of crops as commodities, due to the enormous efficiency and automation of agriculture in my country less than 20 thousand people in total are able to gather all the crop yield
>>1857635
oh so you are high on your own farts. that explains everything

>>1857646
your entire argument hinges on human beings continuing to use fossil fuels. The industrialized agriculture you are talking about is both incredibly damaging towards the living soil, and impossible without fossil fuels and fossil fuel byproducts.

>>1857653
but why is one dependent on the other? the term "industry" does not necessarily imply fossil fuel usage. besides, bitter pill to swallow, we need our fossil fuel until we are capable to develop other energy sources
in any case, most latam countries' economic structure is dependent on raw materials production. in the case of soybean producers, there is virtually no other industry capable of sustaining the material foundations of their societies. its obvious that we should develop other means of production, but in the meanwhile the only thing which sustains hard currency reserves, various welfare institutions and public services and is possible to sustain the first development of other industries is the agrarian sector

>>1857664
> we need our fossil fuel until we are capable to develop other energy sources
Then you're just too dumb to live.

>>1857666
im not even surprised. this is what degrowth is all about

>>1857673
you WILL be degrowthed whether you like it or not. Whether by disease, starvation, or an unlivable climate. Managed decline is necessary if we want to survive.

>>1857678
ecofascism
so much for first world "socialists"

>>1857681
it's not fucking ecofascism you retard. It's just acknowledgement of the climate and biodiversity crisis we find ourselves in. You may as well just be a denier if this is your rhetoric, to just pretend everything is fine. Retard.

>>1857673
>>1857681
Let us assume for the sake of it that items such as bananas, coffee, cars, etc won't exist under communism. Would you stop being a communist then? In that case you never were one in the first place, but just another obnoxious pseud and larper.

>>1857688
no. are you being serious? because im asking serious questions. this is an agrarian country and everyone who considers themselves an earnest, serious socialist needs to take that into account
unless socialism gets established in germany, japan and/or the usa and their governments are interested in developing our means of production for us we have to make do by ourselves

>>1857693
I am serious. Communism is not a choice, it is a material necessity for the workers from which arises a practical movement of proletarian association to revolutionize society. All this debate, therefore, doesn't concern them at all, because it's not a subjective issue of vision or belief.

>>1857685
fuck off. your (you)s are appreciated but they reek of smegma, malthus

>>1857696
The devastation of the environment is linked to the historical development of the capitalist, i.e. modern, mode of production. Things WILL be different under communism, though the details are unknown to everyone, including you and me, for obvious reasons.

>>1857696
Calling somebody a malthusian has just become another thought terminating cliche.

>>1857697
>The devastation of the environment is linked to the historical development of the capitalist, i.e. modern, mode of production.
i would say its linked to the social form of its mode of production. we cant, wont nor shouldnt forfeit the technological wonders it produced, be it in telecommunications, medicine, astronomy, etc. humanity had such structure in the past and it was miserable and brutal
taylor swift's personal lifestyle pollutes more than everyone in this imageboard's combined. moreso, the fact that production is related to necessities and not profit, waste would be illogical since it means unjustified extra work
>though the details are unknown to everyone, including you and me, for obvious reasons.
no, try to think about the establishment of socialism in your place and time with your head according to the material conditions of your society. that way socialism will cease to be a mystery or a combination of "good things", and it will at least try to be a fact

>You can't do industrial scale collective, regenerative, permaculture farming because… because you just can't ok???
Yeah lol socialism will be exactly like capitalism except that it will be a communist party in charge.

>>1857745
can you or can you not? thats what im asking. every agroecology supporter ive known so far has such an utopian, nonsensical take on agriculture it seems incompatible and i want to know about the development of an environment-friendly, sustainable agricultural industry
the only retard who got ass blasted about it was the raised fist dude

>>1857757
I mean are you expecting someone here to actually be a professional in this field and be able to present a fully fleshed out plan for you?

>>1857757
Yeah, you just have to develop the machinery suited to it, which requires adapting and scaling up over time. The fundamental problem with the current mode of agriculture is that we allowed it to develop extreme tunnel vision where we became totally dependent on monocultures and developed the entire agro-economy around those methods. When it turns out they are fundamentally unsustainable in the long run (they always were, back to the agricultural revolution, but that's another story), we have put all our eggs in that basket and doomed everyone to mass starvation.

Unless we move away from that model and start industrializing around mixed-use regenerative agriculture. This doesn't even have to start from scratch with individual farms, because we already have a lot of technology that can be repurposed. We also have the internet which allows innovations to spread much more rapidly. The key factor that's missing is capital, pure and simple. There's just not enough resources in the hands of people to farm in this manner, and the big agra monopolies obviously are going to sit on their hoards like dragons. Fortunately, it seems like general economic conditions are reaching a point where food prices and other factors will force people to rebel before these farming methods destroy too much of the environment and the soil. Climate change is the main thing we're racing against, in all likelihood.

The biggest plus is that even without heavy mechanization, permaculture and regenerative agriculture can work pretty fast to replenish soil and biodiversity, so it's already a lot more feasible than most people realize. One of the basic errors invovled in comparing the alternatives to the status quo is ignoring the gross excess we're currently producing. There's simply no need to be so efficient that fields produce megatons of food that just ends up rotting. Sure, the alternatives can't now and maybe never will reach that level of output per labor-time, but why should they? When we hit practical post-scarcity in food production about 100 years ago, the rational thing would have been to pivot toward sustainability. Instead, we kept on the same path of maximizing output and the economy has been struggling to deal with the overproduction ever since.

>>1857707
Nothing wrong with discussing new and what you may consider better forms of mass producing food, especially given the subject thread, but ultimately it's all speculation as we haven't arrived at a communist society yet.

>>1857767
Someone above seemed to know a lot about the subject matter but left before dropping material on the subject sadly.

>>1857772
Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding your argument but private property in the means of production, of which land is one, is exactly what got us into the present environmental mess to begin with. Any better alternative would be forced to compete capitalistically with other agricultural enterprises, etc. The only hope for mass adoption is if it also ends up being cheaper than current technology, and even then it's not a given either, as we've seen with nuclear power which remains expensive exactly because it hasn't been widely adopted yet.

>>1857801
farmers actually know what's good for the land because farmers know what's good for the crops - crop rotation and crop variation help put nutrients back into the soil and strong roots help the soil stay in place. but the issue is that big corporations like monsanto and tyson own most of the world's food supply and have been forcing farmers to grow GMO non-heirloom crops which are crops that don't reproduce themselves and capitalist fuckery more generally has been trying its hardest to fuck with the world's food supply. it's actually a major part of the reason why russia has been trying to spearhead a "food OPEC" to negotiate food prices collectively, since most of the companies that dominate the food supply are western companies and therefore threaten the national security interests of those countries.

>>1857807
>muh farmers

Most farmland is owned by giant corporations and even the actual small farmers are often irresponsible idiots that hate the environment

>>1857807
Will you ever stop filling the main board with garbage?

>>1857801
>Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding your argument but private property in the means of production, of which land is one, is exactly what got us into the present environmental mess to begin with.
I'm saying the problem is that all the resources are in the hands of monopolies, that there's a lack of resources for people to develop new methods with. This is a communist website, 2 + 2 = seize the means of production. "Capital" here just means the productive resources, not the social formation of capitalism.
>Any better alternative would be forced to compete capitalistically with other agricultural enterprises, etc.
That's why we have to overthrow capitalism or at the very least (and more in the beginning) develop dual power. We can't compete with capitalism, because the ground truth of the situation is that these crises are caused by profit maximization. Any better alternative will by definition be less profitable and less competitive in a market. You can't win at that game and fix the other problems. The only viable option is to stop playing the game and flip the table.
>The only hope for mass adoption is if it also ends up being cheaper than current technology
Not exactly. At least not in monetary terms. If people struggle to sustain themselves under the status quo, it raises their tolerance for "more expensive" alternatives. And taking over land and growing food on it doesn't in and of itself require money or machines. Or even all that much knowledge. If people start to see how the wind is blowing, there's plenty of incentive to start planting seeds. The issue here is more denial of reality and the precariousness of the status quo - how soon people will realize something has to change.
>as we've seen with nuclear power which remains expensive exactly because it hasn't been widely adopted yet.
Growing food is nowhere near the complexity and sophistication of nuclear power plants. The great majority of people have been farming for millennia, so it's not like we don't have proof of the concept that basically anybody can do it.

>>1857816
But monopolies are both inevitable and good for proletarian association in the long run… (yadda yadda capitalism developing its own contradictions)

While we agree on many points I don't believe dual power is viable, because since the thread topic is climate change these are changes that needed to be done yesterday. I can see it being implemented in a DotP if a revolution ever happens, but you know a DotP won't last long if there aren't further revolutions around the globe… Well, maybe the further deterioration of the climate will help with it, kind of like how the wave of revolutions in the 19th century happened due to worsening conditions at the time too.

>>1857826
The US has a stranglehold on food production. At the very least the third world will need to produce its own food during any sort of large scale or global revolution, because they are unlikely to be getting the food aid shipments the populations there currently depend on to live.

>>1857841
We're getting into highly theoretical territory here but yes, you're right. An important function of multiple DotPs would be helping each other with resources and infrastructure.
I'm not bumping because I think I got too unrelated to the subject of climate change. Cheers.

>>1857772
>The key factor that's missing is capital
revolutioning the means of production is one of the main traits of capitalism. dont you think its missing capital simply because its not efficient?
>There's just not enough resources in the hands of people to farm in this manner,
why would that be an issue?
>the big agra monopolies obviously are going to sit on their hoards like dragons
naturally, and their high productivity, competitive capacity and technological efficiency are byproducts of the accumulation of capital flow
>There's simply no need to be so efficient
…there is. socialism doesnt suppose the redistribution of what already exists nor a stagnation of productive forces
>When we hit practical post-scarcity in food production about 100 years ago
i suppose that would be an issue for countries with highly developed means of production
besides, on both of these points, youre forgetting the commodity form of agricultural products. the agrarian industry is not solely related to sustaining food security, but in a sense the very fabric of certain societies. see my previous post >>1857664
>>1857816
>stop playing the game and flip the table.
this is naive. social relationships are correlated with the social form of production. you cant and wont solve problems by "turning off and then on" an entire economy
>If people struggle to sustain themselves under the status quo, it raises their tolerance for "more expensive" alternatives.
im not disagreeing, capitalism can be short-sighted when trying to reproduce itself, but a trait of the capitalist form of production is "cheapening" access to goods and services which would be unaffordable or even non existent under previous forms of production. higher production and efficiency -> lower prices
>Growing food is nowhere near the complexity and sophistication of nuclear power plants. The great majority of people have been farming for millennia, so it's not like we don't have proof of the concept that basically anybody can do it.
i disagree completely with this point. firstly, agricultural industry isnt simply about "growing food". secondly, its current high productivity means it counts with profound technical innovations and therefore a very complex chain of production. thirdly, "diy-ing" food production wont ensure food security
>>1857826
worse material conditions dont equal social revolution. else africa, central america and asea would bastions of advanced socialism

>In Canada, the average price for one litre [of olive oil] has more than doubled over the past three years, from $6.62 in March 2021 to $15.93 in March 2024, according to Statistics Canada's most recent monthly average retail prices — a 140 per cent increase.
>The challenges in olive oil production have been nothing short of a crisis in Spain, the world's largest producer, where production was down 62 per cent last year
>Bad weather has also hit olive crops in other major growers like Greece, Italy and Portugal. Greece and Spain have both seen sales plummet by one-third over the last year
>Global production fell from 3.4 million tonnes in 2022 to 2.5 million tonnes last year, and it's forecast to be even lower this year
it's over. I'm going to have to switch to canola oil only 🤮