Who Feeds the People of the DPRK?

[Bud Struggle]

Once again famine threatens the lives of North Koreans. But this time, the United States—the world’s single largest humanitarian donor—hesitates to respond.

Timing, however, is critical. No one questions reports of impending starvation. The United Nations has long been warning of serious food shortages and the acute malnourishment of children and other vulnerable groups. Five American relief groups, including World Vision, Mercy Corps and Samaritan’s Purse, have just visited and recommend emergency food aid, most importantly no later than June. In some areas North Koreans are already consuming seeds and wild grasses. Government food rations are not enough for the five million said to be in need of international food assistance.

One reason the United States, long North Korea’s largest known food donor (China’s contributions are not made public), has not yet decided to step in with the more than 300,000 tons of food aid actually requested, is that it must be assured that food aid is not diverted or misused.

http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/kim-jong-il-hunger-problem-5026


And:

Dire reports about North Korea’s food situation are common. And so is the political dilemma over whether to help because previous international donations have been redirected by North Korea’s authoritarian regime, led by dictator Kim Jong Il, away from ordinary citizens to the country’s military and elite.

Signs have grown that the current situation is worse than in recent years. The North’s government recently warned citizens several times that food problems are acute, though it also told them that food shortages are common world-wide.

North Korean diplomats this year also asked for food aid from more countries than before, including African countries poorer than it. The WFP reported that its investigators received “unprecedented access” to the country during visits this month and last.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704425804576221812983125224.htm



And this little tidbit from a while back:

Amnesty International warned yesterday that food was being used as a political weapon in North Korea, where hundreds of thousands of people have starved to death in the past 10 years.
In a report the human rights organisation urged the government in Pyongyang to lift restrictions on aid agencies working in North Korea and encouraged foreign governments to continue providing food despite global concerns about North Korea's nuclear programme.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jan/21/northkorea

The problem is compounded in that the US is using food as a weapon also so for the most part the Noth Koreans starve.

[Dimentio]

Probably, South Korea would do it once again.

The media in the North usually claims that North Korea is the biggest donor of food.

When it comes to western aid to Third World nations, I don't think there is anything which the west could be proud of.

Enough food is produced to sustain 12 billion people - almost twice the world population - with West European nutrition. The destruction of small-scale agriculture through competition from commercial actors within agriculture, the dumping and destruction of excess food, slumification and destruction of soils are all caused by a social system where growth trumps life and where the ability to pay equals the needs, rather than the actual needs.

[Bud Struggle]

An interesting point is that for all of the manipulations of farmers and of agraculture in general the Capitalist nations produce vast amounts of food compared to other nations. The fact they dispose of the food improperly is definitely wrong--but there is no denying the ability of Capitalism to produce.

The best scenerio maybe is Capitalist production abilities married to Socialist distribution tendancies.

[Le Libérer]

The best scenerio maybe is Capitalist production abilities married to Socialist distribution tendancies.

It will never happen in a "trickle down" mentality.

[Bud Struggle]

It will never happen in a "trickle down" mentality.

That's why I'm a Social Democrat. The best of both worlds. :)

[RGacky3]

but there is no denying the ability of Capitalism to produce.

The best scenerio maybe is Capitalist production abilities married to Socialist distribution tendancies.

Its not Capitalism thats producing, its advanced technology brought about through heavy government subsidies, its Capitalism thats wasting and destryong the benefits of that technology.

[#FF0000]

An interesting point is that for all of the manipulations of farmers and of agraculture in general the Capitalist nations produce vast amounts of food compared to other nations. The fact they dispose of the food improperly is definitely wrong--but there is no denying the ability of Capitalism to produce.

Are you talking historically, or now in the modern day?

Because I don't really understand what you mean if it's the latter. Every nation is a Capitalist nation.

[Dimentio]

An interesting point is that for all of the manipulations of farmers and of agraculture in general the Capitalist nations produce vast amounts of food compared to other nations. The fact they dispose of the food improperly is definitely wrong--but there is no denying the ability of Capitalism to produce.

The best scenerio maybe is Capitalist production abilities married to Socialist distribution tendancies.

It's a matter of technology. When it comes to the sustainability of capitalist production methods, I beg to disagree.

For example, enormous swathes of rain forest are cut down to grow soy beans, which are used to feed cattle, which require more nutrition than it would have if we had designed society in such a way that "non-meat-based" food is more accessible.

Certainly, the collective farms of the Soviet Union were a disaster, since there was some kind of dogmatic ideological spectre that peasants were to be exploited since they were a "reactionary" class.

The mass production of food today in West Europe and the USA is not conducted so much by private farmers as by giant corporations, and I could seriously not see how for example state-operated agriculture (with the same technology) would be much worse.

[RGacky3]

Certainly, the collective farms of the Soviet Union were a disaster, since there was some kind of dogmatic ideological spectre that peasants were to be exploited since they were a "reactionary" class.


Cooperative farming other places (that did not follow the Leninist dogma) worked out pretty well.

[gorillafuck]

Certainly, the collective farms of the Soviet Union were a disaster, since there was some kind of dogmatic ideological spectre that peasants were to be exploited since they were a "reactionary" class.http://www.usm.maine.edu/eco/joe/works/Soviet.html

[Roach]

The people of the DPRK should suffer for its goverment not being aligned with the USA. :rolleyes:

[Bud Struggle]

Certainly, the collective farms of the Soviet Union were a disaster, since there was some kind of dogmatic ideological spectre that peasants were to be exploited since they were a "reactionary" class.

The mass production of food today in West Europe and the USA is not conducted so much by private farmers as by giant corporations, and I could seriously not see how for example state-operated agriculture (with the same technology) would be much worse.

That's just the problem though. When state operated farms existed--they always have been a disaster. Whatever the reason--they haven't seemed to work.

And true, in meat production there is a vast problem of waste, but that's just what people want. The state not only has to take over the production of food--but it needz to give people the food not that they want--but the food that the state wants them to have.

It's 1984ish.

[RGacky3]

When state operated farms existed--they always have been a disaster. Whatever the reason--they haven't seemed to work.


Talking about the United states? US agriculture is almost entirely subsidies and tarriffs.


And true, in meat production there is a vast problem of waste, but that's just what people want. The state not only has to take over the production of food--but it needz to give people the food not that they want--but the food that the state wants them to have.


Its not just meat production, a lot of it comes from the slash and burn technique (which like everything in capitalism, has short term profits but major externalities and long term problems), a lot of it comes from food speculation and the manipulation of food markets, the profit motive destroys agriculture.

A lot of countries have some sort of collective or state farming or some version of it to varying degrees.

[Dimentio]

The people of the DPRK should suffer for its goverment not being aligned with the USA. :rolleyes:

No, they are suffering because they have an autarchy, and a ridiculously bloated military.

They could have avoided famine even under autarchic conditions if their army had been somewhat smaller. Albania was a complete autarchy and if people starved under Hoxha, we would have been told that (not that I endorse Hoxha, but you understand my point). The difference was that Hoxha did not build a large army, and instead relied on militias, whereas the Kim dynasty has relied on a large, mechanised force dependent on foreign aid to be sustained.

Ultimately, DPRK is more or less a Fascist state, both in practice and in ideology, since they teach that A) autarchy equals the liberty of a people, which is realised through a nation, B) the military are the Vanguard. That is basically Mussolini's teachings.

ciQ6MGU4GV8

Socialism is not about autarchy, but about popular control over the means of production.

Fascism is ultimately a perversion of anti-capitalism, viewing the state as the subject which must be "liberated" from the constraints of capitalism instead of the people.

I think that Yugoslavia under Tito and Venezuela under Chàvez, with their cooperative experiments are resembling what socialism would look like more than command economies (I mean, ancient Egypt and the Incan Empire were command economies, and no sane socialist would call them socialistic). Sweden under Olof Palme also had a project to force the corporations to sell themselves to the Labour Unions piece by piece (if that had succeeded, by year 2000, 100% of the largest Swedish companies would have been worker-controlled).

[Bud Struggle]

Talking about the United states? US agriculture is almost entirely subsidies and tarriffs.
That's true of almost every country.


Its not just meat production, a lot of it comes from the slash and burn technique (which like everything in capitalism, has short term profits but major externalities and long term problems), a lot of it comes from food speculation and the manipulation of food markets, the profit motive destroys agriculture. It destroys small agraculture--I'll grant you that.


A lot of countries have some sort of collective or state farming or some version of it to varying degrees. If that's true-I'd certainly be for it. The problem in past Socialist countries is there was too much government control.

[gorillafuck]

That's just the problem though. When state operated farms existed--they always have been a disaster. Whatever the reason--they haven't seemed to work.Read the link I posted. State farming was not a disaster after Stalin (with Stalin there was the holodomor). State farming has just in general not been "disasters". It has had problems, but overall it has worked for what it meant to do.

[RGacky3]

It distroys small agraculture--I'll grant you that.



It destroys the point of agriculture, i.e. to feed people.


The problem in past Socialist countries is there was too much government control.

I kind of agree, a lot of it was the top down method of those governments, socialism is not about government control, its about a democratic economy, farming should be left to the farmers.

[Dimentio]

That's just the problem though. When state operated farms existed--they always have been a disaster. Whatever the reason--they haven't seemed to work.

And true, in meat production there is a vast problem of waste, but that's just what people want. The state not only has to take over the production of food--but it needz to give people the food not that they want--but the food that the state wants them to have.

It's 1984ish.

It doesn't need to. Under energy accounting for example, meat would be available, but the cost for meat would represent it's true cost in terms of the total physical costs to compensate the environment, hence making people more wary of consuming meat.

If we attach values to the carrying capacity of the Earth instead of the subjective notions of people, people are forced to adapt their notions to that reality indirectly. In short, no one is going to force you to do things, but the production will be engineered in such a way that choices which are better for us all in the long run will be much easier to make.

As for state-owned firms and their inefficiency. State-owned companies in Sweden and France are generally well-liked and are doing their job properly, even adding to the treasuries of said countries.

[pranabjyoti]

This thread is full of callous arguments regarding the state and collective farming of USSR. MOST JUST DOESN'T KNOW THAT THE CAPITAL OF INDUSTRIALIZATION HAS BEEN GAINED BY SELLING THE EXCESS FOOD. Even Churchill openly admitted on an interview that without the state and collective farms, USSR would face a far greater disaster.
And I am curious to know that by which callous economic data and arguments, state-owned farms were and are always a disaster? The paddy growing capability of DPRK is pretty high in comparison to other capitalist countries despite heavy fuel shortage and lack of machinery.

[Dimentio]

This thread is full of callous arguments regarding the state and collective farming of USSR. MOST JUST DOESN'T KNOW THAT THE CAPITAL OF INDUSTRIALIZATION HAS BEEN GAINED BY SELLING THE EXCESS FOOD. Even Churchill openly admitted on an interview that without the state and collective farms, USSR would face a far greater disaster.
And I am curious to know that by which callous economic data and arguments, state-owned farms were and are always a disaster? The paddy growing capability of DPRK is pretty high in comparison to other capitalist countries despite heavy fuel shortage and lack of machinery.

Churchill's government starved about 3-4 million Bengali subjects to death in 1942-1944 in order to feed Britain, so I don't think he's the main authority figure on this issue.

Churchill also once said that "if Britain ever loses her Empire, I hope that we could get a man like that [Hitler] in power", and he said that after 1945.

I think we could agree that for Churchill, Hitler and Stalin, human lives were of second concern in comparison to the grand-scale strategic aims of those leaders.

[Rafiq]

An interesting point is that for all of the manipulations of farmers and of agraculture in general the Capitalist nations produce vast amounts of food compared to other nations. The fact they dispose of the food improperly is definitely wrong--but there is no denying the ability of Capitalism to produce.

The best scenerio maybe is Capitalist production abilities married to Socialist distribution tendancies.


Bullshit.

Pre Mao China disagrees, Nepal Disagrees, India disagrees, and almost every country in africa disagrees.

[Bud Struggle]

Bullshit.

Pre Mao China disagrees, Nepal Disagrees, India disagrees, and almost every country in africa disagrees.

No starvation in Maoist China?

Don't know Nepal.

India is Communist?

There's no starvation in Africa?

I don't see a plan of attack here. Just attack.

[Jose Gracchus]

By who else? Bourgeois.

[Dr Mindbender]

An interesting point is that for all of the manipulations of farmers and of agraculture in general the Capitalist nations produce vast amounts of food compared to other nations. The fact they dispose of the food improperly is definitely wrong--but there is no denying the ability of Capitalism to produce.

The best scenerio maybe is Capitalist production abilities married to Socialist distribution tendancies.

On the contrary, abundancy production happens in spite of capitalism. Capitalists hate overproduction because abundancy drives down goods value which is why they dispose of or destroy excess food. In fact capitalists delieberately avoid means which produce efficiently preferring cheaper, antiquated means such as manned production lines over automated machinery that does not need to eat, sleep or go for toilet breaks.

The best scenario is the abolition of the price system, the redistribution not only of goods but also not only the redistribution of the roles that produce these goods, and where possible (and desirable) the automation of these roles.

[Dr Mindbender]

No starvation in Maoist China?

Don't know Nepal.

India is Communist?

There's no starvation in Africa?

I don't see a plan of attack here. Just attack.

I think he is saying these countries are capitalist (or at least favour a capitalistic economic system).

He said PRE-Maoist China.

[Rafiq]

No starvation in Maoist China?

Don't know Nepal.

India is Communist?

There's no starvation in Africa?

I don't see a plan of attack here. Just attack.

There was one famine in Mao's China, but before Mao, there was a bigger famine every year.

India has massive starvation, and is capitalist.

Africa is 100% capitalist and has massive starvation.