Slog Comments

 

Comments (12) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
Now I understand why you hate rural folks so much, Charles.
Posted by Don't you think he looks tired? on January 30, 2013 at 8:40 AM · Report this
Supreme Ruler Of The Universe 2
Farms make food.

Food feeds people.

People on farms feed themselves.

People in cities are fed by farmers, they do not feed themselves.

As such, cities are not needed.
Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com on January 30, 2013 at 8:55 AM · Report this
3
@2 I suggest you read up on the history of civilization using that computer, literacy, etc that you think is so unnecessary.
Posted by wxPDX on January 30, 2013 at 9:29 AM · Report this
4
Oh, right. The "elections" in Zimbabwe.
Posted by Stranger'sWorstNightmare on January 30, 2013 at 10:10 AM · Report this
5
@3, Are you saying that cities are a requirement for literacy and learning..etc?
Posted by randoma on January 30, 2013 at 10:22 AM · Report this
Pope Peabrain 6
A revolution frozen in time.
Posted by Pope Peabrain on January 30, 2013 at 10:24 AM · Report this
7
Almost a guaranteed outcome when you take export oriented large farms and convert them to subsistence and small holder market farming. These may feed your family. They may even pay school fees for your kids. But they're not going to pay back loans made to the displaced farmers. Add in the balance of trade issues that follow a switch from tobacco to maize and your banking crisis deepens as other sectors that require hard currency inputs start to fail.
Posted by disenfranchised on January 30, 2013 at 11:24 AM · Report this
Theodore Gorath 8
Bailo is almost right, except the circle is completed when you realize that the economy created by the city keeps the farms in business.

Both are needed, they can not exist without each other, and our society could not exist without both.

Well, I guess technically an individual farm can exist without the city, but who the hell wants to go back to isolated, subsistence agriculture?
Posted by Theodore Gorath on January 30, 2013 at 11:26 AM · Report this
9
Chuckie only posts this junk about his failed birth "country" because he'd like you to believe that after the Mudede's left with their suitcases stuffed full of Mugabe's blood money that an irreversible brain drain took place.
Posted by Stranger'sWorstNightmare on January 30, 2013 at 12:31 PM · Report this
10
@8, I might agree that our, American, society might not be able to survive without rural and urban environments, but I'm pretty sure that there are plenty of rural communities in the third world that would do just fine without cities. You know, those places that are basically isolated, subsistence agriculture.

@7, Those export-based farms were taking the value of the land and lining their own pockets. Why should the subsistence and small holder market farmers be responsible for their debts?
Posted by randoma on January 30, 2013 at 1:24 PM · Report this
Y.F. Redux 11
I was under the impression most of the people Mugabe re-distributed the farmland to were city people who had no effing idea how to make a living as a farmer which is why the farmland is essentially not being farmed or at least not very well. Plus, the white hicks were sort of bitter about losing and tore up the irrigation pipes and hid the tractors.
Posted by Y.F. Redux on January 30, 2013 at 8:54 PM · Report this
12
Mugabe didn't give the seized farms to "the blacks" he gave them to his cronies. The whole thing was a cynical exercise in politically-motivated theft, taking from one set of disfavored people in favor of a small set of the favored and well-connected. This was not justifiable redistribution. This was not taking from the rich to give to the poor. Mugabe and his cronies are exactly the kind of villains a Marxist should hate: a small group of parasites enriching themselves by stealing from the productive masses.
Posted by I have always been... east coaster on January 31, 2013 at 2:03 PM · Report this

Add a comment