“Both incorrect. If companies are being subsidized to do farming, how can they be making money from it?”
Very simple. Say I make an average of $100 million in profits out of my operation. I take a few million, pool it with others in my industry, pay some lobbyists, and get a subsidy for $10 million a year. Now I make an average of $110 million in profits out of my operation.
Even if they made no profit to begin with, their innovations weren’t created because they LOST money for the business owners. What kind of logic is there in that?
“Claiming that “factory farming” is not mentioned in the Manifesto—when it clearly is (”combining agriculture with industrial production”)—is an attempt to push reality away.”
No, it is just the opposite. You are trying to use one phrase and equate it with another where no equivalency exists. If all we had to go on was that one sentence in the Manifesto, such a mistake might be understandable, but that’s not the case. The Manifesto is simply a general statement of principles for public consumption, and those principles were already laid out in depth in more scholarly works like Das Kapital. So, instead of continuing to cite one not so specific reference in the Manifesto, we can look at the deeper explanations of that idea and see that there is no resemblance to factory farming, and look at what the communists actually DID, and see that they never set up a single factory farm.
If you refuse to accept that evidence, then you are just denying logic in pursuit of an idea you’ve become emotionally attached to, and there’s nothing more to be done for you.