Muddled thoughts produce muddled ideas, and muddled ideas produce muddled language. While we continue to talk about the community of destiny and the interdependence of mankind, selfishness and short-sightedness continue to emerge one after another. In a family, the man earns money outside, the woman takes care of the household chores and teaches the children, the cozy harbor allows the man to relieve the fatigue of fighting outside, and the responsibility gives the man strength and faith. Family, who is supporting who? Standard answer: interdependence! 囯家，有工人，农民，军人，商人，，，，没有商人，物不流通，没有军人，安全没保证，没有农民，食不饱腹，没有工人，衣不遮身 ，，，， All of them are in accordance with the rules of the real market, and the exchange of equal prices. Who feeds whom? Standard answer: interdependence! Although in the process of interdependence, the exchange of equivalents may not be perfect, or, sensible and reasonable, may still be flawed, the substance remains the same, the rule is still interdependence and complementarity. Stop worrying about who feeds who, life is a community, men, women, workers, farmers, businessmen, soldiers,, less which are defective, together, hand in hand together to move forward, okay?

This is not true, a country consists of all walks of life, industry, agriculture, business, academia and the military rely on each other to survive, people are iron, rice is steel, townspeople can not do without farmers to produce food, farmers can not do without workers to produce a variety of supplies, there are no workers weaving, how do farmers cover the body? Without workers to produce tools, how can farmers plant their fields with empty hands? Without workers to produce fertilizers and pesticides, how can the crops be harvested? It is like returning to a primitive society, where farmers and workers depend on each other for survival and are indispensable to each other.

I think the statement that "farmers feed the townspeople" is very, very wrong.

It is only when the farmers provide the means of living or the cost of living that they can be said to be supporting the townspeople. How can it be said that peasants have fed urban residents when they have not supplied them with the means of subsistence or the cost of living?

Farmers selling their produce to townspeople is a fair trade. One hand gives the goods, the other hand gets the money, and no one owes anyone. He thanks you for the goods, you should thank him for the money.

In reality farmers were not feeding anyone but themselves and their families. Anyone who feeds himself or herself doesn't need anyone to feed him or her.

Put that away and stop selling these clichés!

This is a bit one-sided, farmers farming to get food which is the occupation since ancient times, the old society poor people do not have land, rent landlord's land, to pay the rent, the new society land is the country's farmers farming food to pay the grain, it is a matter of course, but can not be said to be the farmers to feed the townspeople, there are three hundred and sixty lines of work in the society, the city dwellers in order to live, although there is no land, but they also have their own special occupations: For example, factories, knitting, writing, painting, printing, ...... and so on, they do their best to create wealth for their own lives as income, but also for the community also made a contribution, that is, the prosperity of the market, but also supply the needs of the whole population, the rural people also go to the city to buy things, can we say that the townspeople feed the peasants? The materials in the world are exchanged with each other, according to their own needs to choose to buy, there is no who feeds who, everyone is a laborer, everyone is enjoying, only the labor industry is different, the labor environment is different.

It's just that the living environment and occupational division of labor are different, so we can't talk about who feeds who. How can you say that townspeople are supported by farmers when the food you fight for is paid for, not given away for free?

Your question has no scientific basis, it should be mutual promotion and common development. Since liberation, every family has struggled in different positions, no matter workers and peasants, paid should have a corresponding return, especially in today's society, the way of survival depends on everyone.

Farmers grow food, part of the payment of grain, (the state in order to reduce the pressure on farmers, after 2007 do not have to pay) part of their own food, the other part of the market, and then the townspeople spend money to buy, then the townspeople's money is to contribute to the country's remuneration, or hard-earned money. As for the farmers' welfare benefits are lower than those of the citizens, this has nothing to do with the urban residents and cannot be paid for by the urban residents.

This topic is more like creating a conflict, but then again I like to be honest and talk about things as they are, as long as I tell the truth and how I feel, even if it offends people I'm not afraid of it, it's much better than those who like to pander to other people's psyche. Speaking is to convince people with reason.

Yes, if people don't farm, they don't have food, and if people don't eat, they all starve to death, but that's just a difference in the division of labor, but if that logic holds true, doesn't that go into a primitive society? It's like you are asking, is agriculture or industry important? This you should understand, our country used to be a big agricultural country, farmers accounted for 80%, then very poor, now the country is rich, jumped to become the world's second largest economy, the main reason is to embark on the road of industrialization.

Nowadays, even farming can't be done without modern industry and machinery, and there is no one who cuts wheat with a scythe anymore. Besides, the countryside has basically become a hollow village. What do they go out to work for? To farm? But I have never seen any of them go out to farm. I have only seen those who go abroad to farm in Japan and those who contract land in other countries, such as Russia. That is because they can earn more than farming or working at home.

That is why those who go out to work are basically engaged in industry, and there are also some who are engaged in fishing, animal husbandry, tourism, catering, decoration, construction and commerce. It is obviously not possible to rely solely on farming, or else they would not have gone out to work. In addition, many peasants are now converting their farms to non-agricultural use, moving to the cities and engaging in industry, leaving only 40% of the rural population, which will continue to decrease as the cities expand. In other words, for human beings, agriculture is the most basic, and eating is the most basic.

Of course, there are also some Middle East oil countries, due to geographic reasons, all deserts, all wilderness, do not have the conditions to grow food, such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, mainly rely on oil to start, although not farming, but money, the world does not lack of major food-producing countries, people spend money to buy, and we also imported every year from abroad food, and even fish and meat, money is still worried about not eating ah? Even urban households don't farm, but they still have food to eat, don't they? What if they all farmed? I mean, if all 1.4 billion people farmed and gave up industry, what would happen? The land would have to be redistributed. There is already little arable land per capita, to put it in terms of three acres and two cents, so if all 1.4 billion people own arable land, can each family share one acre? Even in an agrarian society, it is not possible to farm all the land, there is also a lot of manufacturing. So only in the primitive society agriculture is more important than industry, into the industrial age industry is even more important than agriculture. Because of farming, first of all there is a limitation on the size of the farmland, and then what is the yield per acre? There is a limitation, although through hybridization, so that the food production has increased, but still there is a limit. Like wheat, the acre yield of 1400 pounds is very high, of course, the highest has reached 2000 pounds, but after all, is a minority, more like a record.

Compare this to the United States, which has almost the same area of arable land. Due to the small number of people and the advanced technology, they only need a few million farmers and the surplus is engaged in industry, and the same is the case with Japan.

The very raising of this issue divides urban and rural areas is inappropriate. As a large agricultural country, the peasantry has a large base and is closely related to national construction and development. Leaving aside the fact that many of the "elites" were born of farmers, the several "urban" migrations of farmers after the founding of New China are sufficient proof of their contribution to national construction. First, there was the third-line construction, in which thousands of peasants, together with other intellectuals, including those from science, industry and the military, responded to the call to go to the front line, and became one of the vital forces of this period. After that, it was the "seventh-grade labor, eighth-grade labor, better to go home and plant a green onion," and many people returned to their hometowns with their families and fought their way back to their original positions. Secondly, young intellectuals from the city went to the countryside, and the countryside accepted a large number of city children who were hard to find jobs and go to school, easing the pressure on the city and sharing and resolving many conflicts and problems for the country. Third, after the reform and opening up, farmers once again went to the cities on a large scale, and their figures could be seen everywhere in various construction sites and low-end labor positions. This continues to this day and speaks for itself. Fourth, the founding of the country to the agricultural tax reform, the state adopted a 'rural support for the city' policy, farmers produce food and eggs, milk and vegetables and other agricultural by-products, priority or even gratuitous support for the city, at that time, 'eating the country's food' to become one of the people, so that this phenomenon has become a college entrance examination resumption of the driving force of the students to participate in the examination of the university and secondary school. According to the statistics of the people concerned, during this period, when the 24-grade wage system was in force and the monthly wage income of 34.5 yuan for the general staff remained unchanged for more than 30 years, the amount of direct support for the cities by the peasants amounted to more than 700 billion yuan. Of course, the production and life of rural peasants can not be separated from the 'city people', but the city really does not have much to support the farmers without compensation.

Those who say that the peasants feed the townspeople are, first of all, ignorant liars! Did the peasants grow food that was given to the state without compensation, or did they give it to the townspeople. The answer is a resounding no. Peasants get paid for their labor by planting and selling food, and they make a living by doing so, not to mention feeding the rest of the population, not even contributing to it. Because the city residents eat food is paid for, and farmers have nothing to do with it. And farmers grow food is purely for their own lives, just different occupations and has been.

To say that peasants are supporting city dwellers is nothing more than a rhetorical statement, and no one with a modicum of conscience and morality would say such an absurd thing. In this society, no matter whether they are engaged in physical or mental labor, they all live for their own survival, and there is no such thing as someone supporting someone. There is no such thing as a person supporting a person. Such a simple fact is still invisible to some people who do not know it, and it is really true that when there are many people, there are all sorts of people, just as there are all sorts of idiotic birds in a big forest, which is just as annoying as that.

I am a farmer, to say a few words, the world does not exist who feeds who, can only say that they feed themselves and their children, who do not owe the love of others, owed only the love of their parents, to raise you to adulthood. The only way to get something for nothing is to be under the protection of your parents. (Am I right? Friends.