You're viewing a single thread.
Assuming it used all the same tools and techniques, making only minor replacements of tractors for voluntary domestic labor .. I don't see why it couldn't reach averages in a similar magnitude. Given them larger plots where they could use industrial tools and they should produce about the same on average.
Eother way there attempts more self sufficiency are to be commended... So the I'm not sure of the point of the post really.
If we had a socialist style of market economy like Vietnam we'd produce more crops.
Also in a correctly valued economy we wouldn't have to subsidize farming.
I feel like there are helpful and harmful fantasies, and villainizing the foundation of all modern life in favor of unrealistic self-sustenance is leaning harmful.
We have the means to all enjoy good produce for minimal costs, we don't need to change to a worse system that costs us more.
Honestly, you don't have to do much to villainize some aspects of industrial farming. It's mostly only possible due to the haber-bosch nitrogenation process, which was invented by the same guy who invented chemical warfare, and the process itself uses lots of petrochemicals and dumps a lot of nitrogen into the natural environment. That's not even getting into the use of migrant workers, or the patenting of dna over some crops, and the food monopolies that exist in some countries.
I also don't think it's a case of "there can be only one system"... And I don't run into a lot of people saying that.
For myself, this isn't one of the more pressing issues in the world. I don't really think people have enough land to be able to be self-sufficient, but gardening is a nice hobby.
Food markets vary from nation to nation, and have political aspects I'm fairly disinterested in, so can't really comment on that.
Bye!