there is a romanticization of the independent farmer in the united states, no doubt brought about by a variety of factors. i don't want to write this history.

further, resisting the dominating influence of agribusiness has some value, although we need to be a little bit careful about how we talk about this. this is not the 1930s, and these people are not like the characters in the grapes of wrath. what we call "independent farms" nowadays are mostly large scale operations that rely on exploiting underpaid workers, many of them undocumented. the functional difference between the independent farm and the agribusiness is far less than many would imagine. really, i would probably argue that the most pressing difference at this point is in regulating carbon emissions.

but, the reason that agribusinesses do well is through economies of scale, which are more efficient, and the most effective way to counter the financialization of the agriculture business is not going to be through antitrust legislation, which is just going to make the process less efficient.

if the farmers are going to be successful in the long run, they are going to need to organize. what that means is forming boards and unions to determine supply management and set prices. if successful, this is actually going to create larger organizations with more integrated workforces. and, where my heart is in this is really in finding ways to better compensate agricultural workers, who are by far the most exploited workers out there - which is a legacy of slavery.

people might like the idea of the family farm, but it is not a coherent economic proposal in the 21st century. the choice is between financialization and collectivization, and that choice ought to be up to the farmers to make themselves.

a politician of the left should be about organizing and empowering the farmers to make their own choices, rather than having them pushed down to them from large banks on the coasts.