People are choosing to ignore the problem: the farmers that are planting rice aren’t making as much money farming as farmers that are able to plant for profit, and the gov’t isn’t doing sufficient to make up for the loss of revenue while despite requiring their labor for the good of the state. As stated in the lede, “But these new plans clash with other signature directives, including pulling farmers out of poverty—and that is causing resentment and confusion.” If farmers discover that they can go do other things that involve less backbreaking work and make more money doing it, then you have fewer people willing to farm in the first place. Which, of course, you can solve by using forced labor, since no one seems to give a shit about the Uyghurs.
If you believe that the state is more important than any personal rights to individual self determination, then sure, this is a totally fair policy. If you believe that the state has the right to enforce poverty on one group of people in order to ensure the comfort of a different group of people is morally justified, then it’s also cool.
I would say that if the state expects people to do labor, then the state should be expected to pay for that labor. Particularly when that state has the 2nd greatest number of billionaires of any country in the world, and could not realistically be called “communist” when compared to any of the source material.
i dunno i think not dying of starvation is a great human right to have
If you believe that the state has the right to enforce poverty on one group of people
citation needed
since no one seems to give a shit about the Uyghurs.
yes, they are making rice in the deserts of xinjiang using slave labor because there’s a shortage of farmers in china. no wait the article is about sichuan
and the gov’t isn’t doing sufficient to make up for the loss of revenue
yes the chinese government is famous for not supporting it’s agricultural sector
I would say that if the state expects people to do labor, then the state should be expected to pay for that labor.
meanwhile the united states actually does use slave labor in the deserts of california, but nobody seems to give a shit about americans
People are choosing to ignore the problem: the farmers that are planting rice aren’t making as much money farming as farmers that are able to plant for profit, and the gov’t isn’t doing sufficient to make up for the loss of revenue while despite requiring their labor for the good of the state. As stated in the lede, “But these new plans clash with other signature directives, including pulling farmers out of poverty—and that is causing resentment and confusion.” If farmers discover that they can go do other things that involve less backbreaking work and make more money doing it, then you have fewer people willing to farm in the first place. Which, of course, you can solve by using forced labor, since no one seems to give a shit about the Uyghurs.
If you believe that the state is more important than any personal rights to individual self determination, then sure, this is a totally fair policy. If you believe that the state has the right to enforce poverty on one group of people in order to ensure the comfort of a different group of people is morally justified, then it’s also cool.
I would say that if the state expects people to do labor, then the state should be expected to pay for that labor. Particularly when that state has the 2nd greatest number of billionaires of any country in the world, and could not realistically be called “communist” when compared to any of the source material.
i dunno i think not dying of starvation is a great human right to have
citation needed
yes, they are making rice in the deserts of xinjiang using slave labor because there’s a shortage of farmers in china. no wait the article is about sichuan
yes the chinese government is famous for not supporting it’s agricultural sector
meanwhile the united states actually does use slave labor in the deserts of california, but nobody seems to give a shit about americans