Cash Crop is kind of a meaningless distinction, but the way farmers use the term is to separate the portion of their field/harvest not by type or species but what their plan for that chunk of the field is, come harvest time.
There are farmers near me that designate about 10-20% of their soybean or wheat yield as Personal or Subsistence Crop to feed to their family and livestock, and then the other 80-90% of that is Cash Crop.
The colloquial use of the term Cash Crop has entered the public consciousness incorrectly, and the argument here is basically the same as when people misunderstand the definition of the word Theory. There’s a breakdown between the specific scientific use as a format for an explanation distinct from a Law, and the colloquial use which just means an idea.
Why did that happen? Because in many places of the world and at different times, farmers were forced to designate most or all of their yield to be sold or to choose which crops they plant based entirely on sale price to the detriment of their ability to grow their personal subsistence crops. That concept is what entered the public consciousness, and I think that’s the problem here.
I will never agree with another definition for cash crops, cash crops are crops whose only utility is to be sold for cash and that’s an inherent property of the actual thing being farmed. Defining all commodified crops as cash crops also muddles analysis of things like what’s going on with this wheat (sold to Africa cheap, African farmers can’t compete on staple foods, and consequently choose to grow other crops i.e. cotton or soy for sale. One definition has both U.S. and African producers growing “cash crops” but that ignores that one being a staple food product, the ones relying on the import of that have overwhelming dependency on that continued import to not starve)
Also like things like tobacco and cotton, you can’t subsist on them at all. They only have purpose as raw materials to be sold. That’s what makes them inherently cash crops. I will never agree with another definition, I’ll just say the other person is wrong. If farmers are using the wrong definition then that’s fine, they can be wrong too
Marxism is an eternal method, an immortal science if you will, which seeks to explain the world accurately. Part of science is refining our beliefs and methods when we discover more accurate information, so part of being a good Marxist is learning to accept when we are wrong about things in healthy ways and to grow from that experience.
Hey, what’s up, I live in Ag Country.
Cash Crop is kind of a meaningless distinction, but the way farmers use the term is to separate the portion of their field/harvest not by type or species but what their plan for that chunk of the field is, come harvest time.
There are farmers near me that designate about 10-20% of their soybean or wheat yield as Personal or Subsistence Crop to feed to their family and livestock, and then the other 80-90% of that is Cash Crop.
The colloquial use of the term Cash Crop has entered the public consciousness incorrectly, and the argument here is basically the same as when people misunderstand the definition of the word Theory. There’s a breakdown between the specific scientific use as a format for an explanation distinct from a Law, and the colloquial use which just means an idea.
Why did that happen? Because in many places of the world and at different times, farmers were forced to designate most or all of their yield to be sold or to choose which crops they plant based entirely on sale price to the detriment of their ability to grow their personal subsistence crops. That concept is what entered the public consciousness, and I think that’s the problem here.
I will never agree with another definition for cash crops, cash crops are crops whose only utility is to be sold for cash and that’s an inherent property of the actual thing being farmed. Defining all commodified crops as cash crops also muddles analysis of things like what’s going on with this wheat (sold to Africa cheap, African farmers can’t compete on staple foods, and consequently choose to grow other crops i.e. cotton or soy for sale. One definition has both U.S. and African producers growing “cash crops” but that ignores that one being a staple food product, the ones relying on the import of that have overwhelming dependency on that continued import to not starve)
Also like things like tobacco and cotton, you can’t subsist on them at all. They only have purpose as raw materials to be sold. That’s what makes them inherently cash crops. I will never agree with another definition, I’ll just say the other person is wrong. If farmers are using the wrong definition then that’s fine, they can be wrong too
No, yeah, I feel you. That’s why Literally means Figuratively and linguistic prescriptivism is bad.
Words have meanings and those meanings are whatever I want them to be and everyone else is wrong!
Finally someone gets it
Marxism is an eternal method, an immortal science if you will, which seeks to explain the world accurately. Part of science is refining our beliefs and methods when we discover more accurate information, so part of being a good Marxist is learning to accept when we are wrong about things in healthy ways and to grow from that experience.
If only these people could accept that they are wrong in insisting that any commodified crop is a cash crop, but alas, i can’t force them to grow