Socialism and hunger: a quick reminder

[Axulus]

As Zycher notes, six out of the 10 worst famines happened in socialist countries. Other famines, including those in Nigeria, Somalia and Bangladesh, were partly a result of war and partly a result of a government’s economic mismanagement.

The American students growing interested in “socialism” today are too young to remember what the world actually looked like the last time socialism held sway. In their lifetimes, famine has all but disappeared. Today, there is not a single ongoing case of famine in the world – not even in war-torn places like Syria.

Why did famines disappear? First, because agricultural production is at an all-time high and food has been getting cheaper, not dearer. Between 1960 and 2015, the world’s population increased by 143 percent. Over the same time period, the price of food has gone down by 22 percent. Second, humanity has grown richer and can afford to buy more food. Over the last 55 years, the real average annual per capita income in the world rose by 163 percent. Third, communications and transport have massively improved and it is now possible to deliver food aid anywhere in the world in a relatively short time. Fourth, globalization and trade ensure that food can be purchased by anyone, anywhere.

Africa has been the main beneficiary of that salutary development. In 1961, Africans consumed 1,993 calories per person per day. In 2011, which is the last year for which the World Bank provides data, they consumed 2,618 calories. Globally, food consumption increased from 2,196 calories to 2,870 calories. Even in Ethiopia, food consumption has increased. In 1993, two years after the overthrow of the Derg, Ethiopians consumed 1,508 calories per person per day. In 2013, they consumed 2,131 calories.

Zimbabwe, which still suffers from Marxist rule, has not been so lucky. In 1961, Zimbabweans consumed 2,115 calories per person per day. By 2013, that number fell to 2,110.

Wherever it has been tried, from the Soviet Union in 1917 to Venezuela in 2015, socialism has failed. Socialists have promised a utopia marked by equality and abundance. Instead, they have delivered tyranny and starvation. Young Americans should keep that in mind.

http://capx.co/socialism-and-hunger-a-quick-reminder/

 

[laughing dog]

I counted 30 famines in that list. 6 or 20% are listed as "socialist". I wonder what the other 80% were.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Nice how the word socialism was conflated to mean doctrinaire communism. Not the same.

A fallacy of equivocation.

 

[fromderinside]

I counted 30 famines in that list. 6 or 20% are listed as "socialist". I wonder what the other 80% were.

Well I counted nine, but, that's just because I went through the entire list.

Its pretty impressive that 6 out of the worst nine are labeled socialist.

Yet, the 28 EU nations are democratic socialist states and none of them are listed among the famine states. I'm thinking the thread creator failed to discriminate totalitarian socialist states from democratic socialist states (states with leadership turnover and strong legislative branches) and totalitarian states from democratic states which really defeats his attempt to point at socialism as the famine culprit.

Why doesn't the author mention that EU members are primarily democratic socialist states and that they are states that have turned to socialism over the past 100 years. BTW, I argue that the US, Canada and Mexico should be considered democratic socialist states as well.

So much for a junk OP as a quick reminder of anything except to the extent one will go to propagandize or demonize a movement.

 

[ksen]

1979 Cambodia was in the midst of invasion by the Vietnamese. Sounds war related rather than socialism related.

1921 Soviet Union: the Soviet Union didn't exist until the end of 1922. But in 1921 Russia was still recovering from World War I and undergoing civil wars. Again, sounds more war related than socialism related.

 

[arkirk]

As Zycher notes, six out of the 10 worst famines happened in socialist countries. Other famines, including those in Nigeria, Somalia and Bangladesh, were partly a result of war and partly a result of a government’s economic mismanagement.

The American students growing interested in “socialism” today are too young to remember what the world actually looked like the last time socialism held sway. In their lifetimes, famine has all but disappeared. Today, there is not a single ongoing case of famine in the world – not even in war-torn places like Syria.

Why did famines disappear? First, because agricultural production is at an all-time high and food has been getting cheaper, not dearer. Between 1960 and 2015, the world’s population increased by 143 percent. Over the same time period, the price of food has gone down by 22 percent. Second, humanity has grown richer and can afford to buy more food. Over the last 55 years, the real average annual per capita income in the world rose by 163 percent. Third, communications and transport have massively improved and it is now possible to deliver food aid anywhere in the world in a relatively short time. Fourth, globalization and trade ensure that food can be purchased by anyone, anywhere.

Africa has been the main beneficiary of that salutary development. In 1961, Africans consumed 1,993 calories per person per day. In 2011, which is the last year for which the World Bank provides data, they consumed 2,618 calories. Globally, food consumption increased from 2,196 calories to 2,870 calories. Even in Ethiopia, food consumption has increased. In 1993, two years after the overthrow of the Derg, Ethiopians consumed 1,508 calories per person per day. In 2013, they consumed 2,131 calories.

Zimbabwe, which still suffers from Marxist rule, has not been so lucky. In 1961, Zimbabweans consumed 2,115 calories per person per day. By 2013, that number fell to 2,110.

Wherever it has been tried, from the Soviet Union in 1917 to Venezuela in 2015, socialism has failed. Socialists have promised a utopia marked by equality and abundance. Instead, they have delivered tyranny and starvation. Young Americans should keep that in mind.

http://capx.co/socialism-and-hunger-a-quick-reminder/

Your list is just so much bullshit. You show countries like Cambodia and North Korea and China and try to call these countries socialist...big error on your part. These countries are dictatorships with no means and no intention of supporting socialism. I am certain that Kim Jung Un is nothing but an ignorant militarist and spends none of his efforts on anything but his war making capabilities. You have already demonstrated to me you have no idea what the primary motivation of socialistic applications are all about. It is about something you do not appear to believe in....supporting humanity....all of it...not just the fucking rich.

 

[Underseer]

The only reason we don't have mass starvation in America is because of the social safety net that the fascists keep trying to destroy.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Other famines, including those in Nigeria, Somalia and Bangladesh, were partly a result of war and partly a result of a government’s economic mismanagement.

Oh if we include war and government economic mismanagement, then we can include almost all of those famines. They are also missing significant famines like the Vietnam famine of 1945 and the Congo in 1998. The Cambodian numbers include the number killed during the Khmer Rouge.

I also like how they only use the 20th century, two great famines in the 19th century were caused by free market policies and the decision not to have the victims get "dependent on aid".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1876–78
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland)

 

[rousseau]

Way too easy.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Aren't most of those nations developing nations? I think you'd have to do a pretty complex analysis to determine how socialism specifically is at fault.

 

[Angry Floof]

Wow, the sheer number of facts and factors related to socialism you have to trip over to find something suitable for fear mongering.

 

[jonatha]

Judging from the list a better thread title would have been "The Eastern Hemisphere and hunger: a quick reminder"...

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I counted 30 famines in that list. 6 or 20% are listed as "socialist". I wonder what the other 80% were.

Rounding out the top 10:

Rwanda: Overpopulation.

Somalia: Ecological collapse.

Bangladesh: Weather.

Nigeria: I don't know.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Nice how the word socialism was conflated to mean doctrinaire communism. Not the same.

A fallacy of equivocation.

Those 6 were due to the government meddling with the market system and causing great damage in the process.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

1979 Cambodia was in the midst of invasion by the Vietnamese. Sounds war related rather than socialism related.

1921 Soviet Union: the Soviet Union didn't exist until the end of 1922. But in 1921 Russia was still recovering from World War I and undergoing civil wars. Again, sounds more war related than socialism related.

Vietnam invaded to put an end to the horrors of Cambodia. You have cause and effect backwards.

 

[ksen]

1979 Cambodia was in the midst of invasion by the Vietnamese. Sounds war related rather than socialism related.

1921 Soviet Union: the Soviet Union didn't exist until the end of 1922. But in 1921 Russia was still recovering from World War I and undergoing civil wars. Again, sounds more war related than socialism related.

Vietnam invaded to put an end to the horrors of Cambodia. You have cause and effect backwards.

http://worldinfo.org/2012/01/famine-in-cambodia/

Constant war, helped by the United States, was the main cause of the cambodian famine.

 

[Derec]

Yet, the 28 EU nations are democratic socialist states and none of them are listed among the famine states.

No, they are not "democratic socialist". I don't even think that is a meaningful concept (sorry Bernie!)
These countries are capitalist countries with mostly stronger social safety net and greater level of public services than US, but they are all based on capitalist economy.
Socialism describes economic systems characterized by primarily public ownership of means of production.

Why doesn't the author mention that EU members are primarily democratic socialist states and that they are states that have turned to socialism over the past 100 years.

Because they haven't.

BTW, I argue that the US, Canada and Mexico should be considered democratic socialist states as well.

Which makes mockery of the term "socialist". What is your definition of "socialist" anyway. "Has some public services and some social safety net"? Ridiculous! By that definition bleeding Margaret Thatcher would be pinko because not even she wanted to eliminate all of them!

So much for a junk OP as a quick reminder of anything except to the extent one will go to propagandize or demonize a movement.

So much for a junk response that fails to define its terms properly.

 

[lpetrich]

Axulus, two can play that game. Slavery and serfdom are capitalist sorts of things, since they are based on private ownership. The idea that nobody has a right to own anyone else is a socialist idea. According to your argument, Axulus, the idea that slavery and serfdom are illegitimate is an idea that can only lead to destitution and famines and mass murder.

Look at New World plantation slavery. The slaves grew crops like sugar and tobacco and cotton. Does one grow sugar or tobacco or cotton for subsistence farming? I wouldn't be surprised if some capitalism-groupie slavery apologists believed that, but it is such a laughable premise. Sugar has only limited nutritional value, and tobacco and cotton have zero nutritional value. There is a good reason why sugar and tobacco and cotton are called "cash crops", something that some self-styled economics genius should have no trouble grasping. Simply consider Thomas Jefferson. He stopped being ambivalent about slavery when he discovered how much money he was making off of it. Yes, he was discovering what a successful capitalist he was being.

Also, if a government can decree that slaveowners no longer have a legitimate claim on their slaves, then it can deprive anybody and everybody of their property by decreeing that they don't own it. So abolition of slavery is a dangerous socialist precedent.

 

[BH]

Just for the sake of argument how do we know the "socialism" of the so-called socialist countries kept the famine from being worse than it would have been otherwise?

I know it will strike some as perverse, but if the farmers and other agricultural workers got mad and refused to work and/or destroyed crops because they were mad the government was taking more of their food than they liked then they were kinda stupid. Duh, no crops equals no food. Granted one can argue it wasn't fair to take from the farmers for a rate they felt unfair but you don't refuse to hand over your wallet to a mugger who is threatening to kill you if you don't and is not bluffing. What good did it do the agricultural workers and rich landowners who owned farms to burn everything out of spite only to suffer the revenge of socialist law or the famine that killed them if the law didn't?

It may not have been right for the government to come in and tell them what to grow and for what price I admit is debateable, but if they did burn, destroy, or sabatoge their own farms then they are partially to blame to.

 

[Angry Floof]

Now, look here, you two. This approach of questioning and nuance is not going to be tolerated here. Get back to your consumerist duties like good citizens.