Designing a global, communist food system

[Cheese Guevara]

You can model a global, communist food system and use it as a microcosm to explore the workings and problems of a global, communist system.

In this thread, I invite you to post simple step-by-step guides, preferably in bullet points, to establishing such a system.

Note: you need not heed the strict definition of "communism". Some people have a fetishistic obsession with small, communal, agrarian plots which are "owned by the masses". The opposite (global, centralized, hi-tech planning) is not fascism.

Please proceed.

[tuwix]

The question is what do you mean by communism? Pure Marxists will tell you that is different name of socialism. Anarchists and Leninists will tell you that it's what pure Marxists calls the second phase of socialism.

Generally in system without money there must be found demand and supply. Then there must be division for goods necessary to survive (bread,rise, potatoes and other vegetables) and unnecessary (caviar,lobsters, etc.) For first goods must be found the way to increase production but for short period there can be rationing applied. Foir the second one there could be a booking system as in hotels and airlines.

[Fourth Internationalist]

A step-by-step guide on establishing a communist food system (whatever that is supposed to mean) seems a bit much (and to be quite honest, very silly) for one to plan out in this day and age, don't you think?

[Remus Bleys]

Itt: utopian socialism

[argeiphontes]

Itt: utopian socialism

Not if there's no food!

[Tim Cornelis]

The question seems odd to me. If we know that in communism land is communally owned and labour freely associated, we know that agrarian producers' associations will be established to produce foodstuffs, presumably using sustainable vertical agriculture. Each commune, or municipality, will be almost entirely self-sufficient in food production. The exact details come about by the appliance of tacit knowledge of those involved, and I don't see a need to further expand beyond what I've described unless we were in the process of actually implementing it.

you need not heed the strict definition of "communism". Some people have a fetishistic obsession with small, communal, agrarian plots which are "owned by the masses". The opposite (global, centralized, hi-tech planning) is not fascism.

I think this relies on a misconstruction of the actual argument. I've never met a person who identifies communism with small communal agrarian plots. Usually the argument is that the Soviet Union was capitalist (not fascist or communist). This is not fetishism, it's Marxist analysis.

[Cheese Guevara]

"Each commune, or municipality, will be almost entirely self-sufficient in food production." [...] "I've never met a person who identifies communism with small communal agrarian plots."

Isn't that what you're inadvertently saying, though? A self-succificient "town", "municipality" and "country" does not necessitate a global collectivising of land. A global collectivising of land means the resources of every country, and the crops able to be grown in said country, are globally owned and globally managed. This necessitates, I'd imagine, a managing body akin to large transglobal corporations.

A simple, sustainable, communal food system is beholden to the limitations of its locale.

Incidentally, this question is due to a statement by science fiction author Ursula Leguin. In one of her novels a character essentially says that communism can only arise when humans figure out how to design a global, communal food system. The food supply is, for this character, a kind of primitive blue print.

[ckaihatsu]

Incidentally, this question is due to a statement by science fiction author Ursula Leguin. In one of her novels a character essentially says that communism can only arise when humans figure out how to design a global, communal food system. The food supply is, for this character, a kind of primitive blue print.


I'll interpret this as a *challenge* for a globalized centralized production -- why *not* food, in other words....

Whatever the 'stuff' happens to be, the question is how can we coordinate the labor and resources of the world so as to realize the *broadest* economies of scale, to reduce effort and to maximize results.

I'll note that I don't see this -- as market socialists do -- as a *linear* construction, where a pre-optimized blueprint has to be laid out in advance. Rather, we can look at it in a *nonlinear* way, and consider *how broad* any given layout *could* be, to produce whatever.

In other words, if there's truly an isolated island somewhere, they have no choice but to produce foodstuffs locally. If the island makes contact with other islands, and the mainland, then their *logistical* possibilities open up, and we can consider any and all of these options for any product, tracking it backward, "up" any and all supply chains that contribute to that final product.

Given all this, do we have to consider *every* potential input (supply chain) from all over the world, for this little island, in an attempt to formulate a blueprint upfront -- ?

I argue 'no', and would look at it *geographically* first, to find a relatively suitable *nearby* source for whatever. That source, respectively, could itself look 'around' and 'upwards', for broader possibilities for *its* sourcing potentials, etc.

In this way, over time, the entire system of linkages could eventually settle into more of an *optimized* arrangement, for all productive capacities.


Multi-Tiered System of Productive and Consumptive Zones for a Post-Capitalist Political Economy

http://s6.postimage.org/ccfl07uy5/Multi_Tiered_System_of_Productive_and_Consumptiv.j pg (http://postimage.org/image/ccfl07uy5/)

[Comrade Chernov]

Globalization is impossible for food. It'd be a nightmare at best, impossible at worst. Self-sufficiency is key.

[Ritzy Cat]

Globalization is impossible for food. It'd be a nightmare at best, impossible at worst. Self-sufficiency is key.

This is true.

The tediousness, cost of time & resources, to transport tons and tons of food to foreign countries that are lacking it make it very difficult to bring food. Despite the fact America throws away enough foodstuffs to feed the entirety of Africa, how would we get it all there?

Thus, wouldn't it seem more viable to simply render every community able to produce its own food? While more prosperous communities may certainly share with neighboring ones, it would be completely ridiculous to bring food from California to the Gobi Desert.

If we remove the corporate annexation of the food markets, food hunger in Africa, Asia, etc. would not be nearly as large of an issue. If we were to adapt these communities with modern technology, farming, fishing methods, etc. they can become more sustainable, as well as assuring water to these communities as well. However of course, communities that are so out of place, in such inhospitable locations (think the edges of Siberia, or the center of the Sahara) it would be much more sensible to relocate these people because there is no motive to be there, unless they provide some sort of resource beneficial to the world's workers, other than for their "cultural sense of home".

I think removing the bourgeois control of food, simply through eliminating corporate structures & private ownership of farmland, the food industry etc. will be a large step towards solving the world hunger issue. Then we will improve communities that TRULY are unable to provide for themselves (not the ones that have been deprived of their resources by private individuals/corporations/countries) will be provided for by communities in their area that create a surplus.

Globalization of this food is, completely unnecessary. In almost every part of the world, there is a food crop that is a staple to the region, can be grown in large amounts, and can provide for large amounts of people in its area. (Asia = rice, America = corn, Middle East = dates? idk lol).

In the Middle East for example, the ones with the most food output are obviously going to be the ones along the Tigris and Euphrates. Those more inland, without access to these rivers will not produce as much food. If these communities are unable to provide for their population, these more prosperous ones will donate their resources. But there's no reason to take in exquisite caviar from the depths of the Pacific taken up by Japanese fishermen to feed a community when there is a widespread resource.

Once we solve the human need, we can begin to satisfy the human wants of these more "exquisite' food items.