news
Welcome to c/news! We aim to foster a book-club type environment for discussion and critical analysis of the news. Our policy objectives are:
-
To learn about and discuss meaningful news, analysis and perspectives from around the world, with a focus on news outside the Anglosphere and beyond what is normally seen in corporate media (e.g. anti-imperialist, anti-Zionist, Marxist, Indigenous, LGBTQ, people of colour).
-
To encourage community members to contribute commentary and for others to thoughtfully engage with this material.
-
To support healthy and good faith discussion as comrades, sharpening our analytical skills and helping one another better understand geopolitics.
We ask community members to appreciate the uncertainty inherent in critical analysis of current events, the need to constantly learn, and take part in the community with humility. None of us are the One True Leftist, not even you, the reader.
Newcomm and Newsmega Rules:
The Hexbear Code of Conduct and Terms of Service apply here.
-
Link titles: Please use informative link titles. Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed.
-
Content warnings: Posts on the newscomm and top-level replies on the newsmega should use content warnings appropriately. Please be thoughtful about wording and triggers when describing awful things in post titles.
-
Fake news: No fake news posts ever, including April 1st. Deliberate fake news posting is a bannable offense. If you mistakenly post fake news the mod team may ask you to delete/modify the post or we may delete it ourselves.
-
Link sources: All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body. If you are citing a Twitter post as news, please include the Xcancel.com (or another Nitter instance) or at least strip out identifier information from the twitter link. There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance, such as Libredirect or archive them as you would any other reactionary source.
-
Archive sites: We highly encourage use of non-paywalled archive sites (i.e. archive.is, web.archive.org, ghostarchive.org) so that links are widely accessible to the community and so that reactionary sources don’t derive data/ad revenue from Hexbear users. If you see a link without an archive link, please archive it yourself and add it to the thread, ask the OP to fix it, or report to mods. Including text of articles in threads is welcome.
-
Low effort material: Avoid memes/jokes/shitposts in newscomm posts and top-level replies to the newsmega. This kind of content is OK in post replies and in newsmega sub-threads. We encourage the community to balance their contribution of low effort material with effort posts, links to real news/analysis, and meaningful engagement with material posted in the community.
-
American politics: Discussion and effort posts on the (potential) material impacts of American electoral politics is welcome, but the never-ending circus of American Politics© Brought to You by Mountain Dew™ is not welcome. This refers to polling, pundit reactions, electoral horse races, rumors of who might run, etc.
-
Electoralism: Please try to avoid struggle sessions about the value of voting/taking part in the electoral system in the West. c/electoralism is right over there.
-
AI Slop: Don't post AI generated content. Posts about AI race/chip wars/data centers are fine.
view the rest of the comments
I need to look at more recent figures, but I’m pretty sure this is in part a result of cheap Chinese agri equipment making it easier for global south countries to grow their own. Let’s not forget that American cash crop exports have been a key lever in imperialist extraction over the last 80 years or so
I don't think wheat is considered a cash crop, i think it's the opposite of cash crop when you grow staple foods
Wheat is absolutely a cash crop
cash crops are specifically not eaten as food though, that what makes growing a shitload of cash crops a bad idea and a cause for famine
If the wheat were 100% being used for shit like biodiesel it would be a cash crop, but it's not
If "wheat is a cash crop" were true the same would be true for rice and at that point the phrase is literally meaningless because it offers no meaningful distinction
Edit: the lying machine agrees with you but i disagree, it thinks the distinguishing factor is whether or not it's subsistence agriculture and I disagree because that doesn't fucking matter lol a cash crop isn't just "a crop that is grown for money" it's a crop which only has trade value for money. Otherwise every bit of excess a subsistence farmer grows and sells magically becomes "a cash crop" and there's no distinction between the end-use of what is being grown, which is what matters. Farmers planting a bunch of wheat that ends up being sold aren't "relying on cash crops" in the same way as cotton or tobacco farmers are.
A cash crop is any crop grown to sell for cash to a (foreign) market, not "non-edible" crops.
No it isn't
It literally is. You've invented a fake definition.
No, you people just don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Under your definition literally any crop grown and sold is a cash crop, but that isn't true. You're the ones offering a muddier, useless definition, defining literally any crop ever sold as a cash crop. Rice isn't a fucking cash crop. If you've ever heard it being defined as a cash crop, you're being fucking lied to. It's a staple food produced primarily to fucking feed people, and it doesn't just magically stop being that just because you produce an extra pound of it and sell that shit to someone else. The commodification and sale of a fucking crop is not what makes it a fucking cash crop!
I have literally never my fucking life heard "Cash crops" to refer to anything other than shit like tobacco, cotton, corn for biofuel, etc., you people are just straight up fucked to death wrong here.
What's really fucking ironic is lol I'm pretty sure that this exact thing, American wheat sold for imperialist purposes, is intended to force reliance on american food imports so that other countries have to have comparatively higher proportions of cash crops instead, feeding the west raw materials while increasing precarity for the developing world
You know why they're in greater precarity? Because they're GROWING CASH CROPS, and the U.S. can TURN OFF ITS EXPORTS, which matter BECAUSE THEY'RE EXPORTING STAPLE FOODS AND NOT FUCKING CASH CROPS
Stop fucking bothering me over shit you're this wrong about
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.
Just catching up but I wanted to chime in that I agree with you on this one. Or at least, my exposure to the term in the past matches yours.
It's certainly not useful in modern industrial agriculture where every crop is being sold for market. Wikipedia says the term is used to differentiates from a "staple crop" i.e. what a farmer grows to eat for themselves. But staple crop redirects to "staple food" all of which are grown as ~~commodities~~ cash crops so it's an inconsistent mess.
I think our schools just taught us wrong.
Thank you abracadaniel, i think ive acted belligerently enough about this that i don't deserve vindication but i do appreciate your opinion and agreement
I really wanted to post something like "chat, help, I've been trying to subsist on all my tobacco and cotton but i can't, do you think it might have anything to do with any sort of intrinsic quality of these crops, like, that I might need to trade them for cash or other necessities, like they're some sort of... cash... crop?" post but i also really don't wanna keep arguing about it
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
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.
there is no need to get confused about it, a cash crop is just the literal definition of a commodity. a thing produced with the explicit purpose of being sold.
You're wrong
all crops that are harvested and sold are cash crops, or just commodities.
Hey, what's up, I live in Ag Country.
Cash Crop is kind of a meaningless distinction, but the way farmers use the term is to separate the portion of their field/harvest not by type or species but what their plan for that chunk of the field is, come harvest time.
There are farmers near me that designate about 10-20% of their soybean or wheat yield as Personal or Subsistence Crop to feed to their family and livestock, and then the other 80-90% of that is Cash Crop.
The colloquial use of the term Cash Crop has entered the public consciousness incorrectly, and the argument here is basically the same as when people misunderstand the definition of the word Theory. There's a breakdown between the specific scientific use as a format for an explanation distinct from a Law, and the colloquial use which just means an idea.
Why did that happen? Because in many places of the world and at different times, farmers were forced to designate most or all of their yield to be sold or to choose which crops they plant based entirely on sale price to the detriment of their ability to grow their personal subsistence crops. That concept is what entered the public consciousness, and I think that's the problem here.
I will never agree with another definition for cash crops, cash crops are crops whose only utility is to be sold for cash and that's an inherent property of the actual thing being farmed. Defining all commodified crops as cash crops also muddles analysis of things like what's going on with this wheat (sold to Africa cheap, African farmers can't compete on staple foods, and consequently choose to grow other crops i.e. cotton or soy for sale. One definition has both U.S. and African producers growing "cash crops" but that ignores that one being a staple food product, the ones relying on the import of that have overwhelming dependency on that continued import to not starve)
Also like things like tobacco and cotton, you can't subsist on them at all. They only have purpose as raw materials to be sold. That's what makes them inherently cash crops. I will never agree with another definition, I'll just say the other person is wrong. If farmers are using the wrong definition then that's fine, they can be wrong too
No, yeah, I feel you. That's why Literally means Figuratively and linguistic prescriptivism is bad.
Words have meanings and those meanings are whatever I want them to be and everyone else is wrong!
Finally someone gets it
Marxism is an eternal method, an immortal science if you will, which seeks to explain the world accurately. Part of science is refining our beliefs and methods when we discover more accurate information, so part of being a good Marxist is learning to accept when we are wrong about things in healthy ways and to grow from that experience.
If only these people could accept that they are wrong in insisting that any commodified crop is a cash crop, but alas, i can't force them to grow
Yes, wouldn’t cash crops be for instance corn and soy which are largely not for human consumption (biofuels/livestock feed)
I would consider those cash crops yeah because those are the intended purposes and a lot of it can't even be used for human consumption even if you wanted to. Wheat has industrial uses (literally everything does) but I've never heard of it being grown on anywhere near the scale of those for those purposes
Anyway Google's lying machine says i'm wrong but i still disagree
Google is psyoping again trust the plan 🌽🌾
Every now and then i feel like the entire world retcons some bit of language into some absolute fucking nonsense and this is one of those times. A cash crop isn't a cash crop just because it's sold for fucking money, it's a cash crop if being sold for money is all it's fucking good for!
This makes it sound like cash crops are the agricultural equivalent of NFTs lol
all crops that are sown to be sold on the market are commodities, wrongly named cash crops.
cash crop = commodity.
You're wrong