You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
19 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
reply
16 points

i don’t buy the numbers, i think there’s more people struggling to put food on the table than what this says.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Food insecure

At times during the year, these households were uncertain of having or unable to acquire enough food to meet the needs of all their members because they had insufficient money or other resources for food. Food-insecure households include those with low food security and very low food security.

Low food security

These food-insecure households obtained enough food to avoid substantially disrupting their eating patterns or reducing food intake by using a variety of coping strategies, such as eating less varied diets, participating in Federal food assistance programs, or getting food from community food pantries.

Very low food security

In these food-insecure households, normal eating patterns of one or more household members were disrupted and food intake was reduced at times during the year because they had insufficient money or other resources for food.

I’d say Ramen only would fall under low food security, because it’s a less varied diet.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

I see it as the fact that we already has more than double the capacity to feed everyone, yet we still choose not to.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Yep, by the definitions of food security capitalist countries have always done better than communist ones. In the USSR, only Ukraine, Belorussia, and Kazakhstan produced a surplus. Famines resulted when food was forcibly taken from them to feed the rest. By the above definition, the 70% of the USSR was food insecure.

China didn’t look much better and the less centralized they were, the worse it got. (before folks come out of the woodwork to claim that it wasn’t true socialism or anarchism) All non capitalist systems we have ever seen including feudalism and socialism have required violence to force production. That’s just slavery with extra steps.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

There weren’t really famines in the USSR after the beginning, when they fucked up collectivization and then went through a long and brutal war for their people. Same thing with China. They messed up some stuff a lot but they were also basically the first two countries trying a new thing.

But capitalist countries have gone through famines as well, even more so because there have been more of them, and when they were in the same pre-industrial and early industrial periods of their development as well. UK controlled India went through its own famine due to human causes, there was the Great Dust Bowl in the US, basically half of Africa and everything that has gone on there, etc.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*

This is false, even by the CIA’s own admission:

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP84B00274R000300150009-5.pdf

You must be speaking about the USSR’s early period, transitioning from a rural backwater into an industrial power house. They experienced a famine then (and unfortunately it was the routine even before communism), but once they completed collectivication, there no longer were any. In other words, communism ended the pattern of famines in Russia and Ukraine.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

Correct, once they shifted from smaller communes where people were free to do what they wanted and shifted to directed labor, they solved their productivity problem. Slaves do make for greater production.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Memes

!memes@lemmy.ml

Create post

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

Community stats

  • 9.1K

    Monthly active users

  • 12K

    Posts

  • 264K

    Comments