pay. Workers could of course be paid to raise food and if the wages were high enough it would not be a big problem. Land ownership is another issue. Almost all land is already owned and most likely the owners are not willing to let it go without just compensation. So how do we encourage a change without making it a ownership issue?

An answer that works in the US may not may the best answer in South America or Africa. In the US, I think we should encourage the development of "public option" and "co-op" alternative food production and distribution that would gradually grow as a proportion of the current system. As far as land goes, maybe the goverment could buy some farmland the same way we do when we need to build a pipeline or a highway. Also very tight regulating and taxing corporate farms could accomplish some of the same goals while encouraging corporate agriculture to either get out of the way, or evolve to serve the public need.

I would also just add that I think smaller private farms and traditional family farms are perfectly lovely. Giant corporations have and will continue to threaten traditional family farms. In my opinion any agriculture reform should be seen as protecting small farms and traditional farms by containing the expansion of the giant corporate farms.

corporations. That is also a good start. My son-in-law is doing that. I have encouraged him to think about bartering and accepting shares from the family members he furnishes with many of his products. We also donate extras to the food shelf but with chickens and pigs there are not aways that many left overs.

I'd personally be ok with nationalizing most big industry in this country including farming (as opposed to small mom and pops, personal homes, etc ...). Rather than complete state control I'd envision more of a co-op type situation. Food is an issue now, and water is next. As long as we keep putting up with capitalism we are losing more and more natural resources. Using them up, putting the control in too few hands.

played a huge role in our lives. To begin with there was the REA which was responsible for bringing electrification to the area and still exists today. There were also cooperatives that furnished gas and automotive products to the members and also some cooperative grocery stores. With the exception of the stores they all still exist. People buy memberships and get a discount on the products they buy or a dividend at the end of the year. My father still belonged when he died.

I also am familiar with the tribal system on several reservations and that is a membership based ownership of tribal lands and businesses. They elect representatives to run the businesses and share in the proceeds. It also works very well when we leave them alone to run their own lives.

but I do remember all the small family farms (my grandfather owned one) ... and how they started selling out when you had to make a choice to either grow larger and compete or hang it up. It was nearly impossible to compete against the factory farms. One of my uncles succeeded by keeping a small portion of land and turning in into "pick your own strawberries (spring) and pumpkins (fall)".

He to ended up with an acreage and supported his family by gardening and working out on other farms.

ALL of the "general welfare" industries (food would be one of the most basic in this category) should be nationalized and run on a not-for-profit basis and sold on a sliding scale (given away?) at cost. And cost would include fair pay for agricultural workers, but not for owners.

As to compensation, philosophically I don't think it's necessary (I am a bolshevik after all , but if it makes the transition go smoother, then the government representing the PEOPLE could buy agricultural land from individuals at market price and either run the farms directly or sub them out to nonprofit co-ops. Eventually, low or no cost government food would ruin the private sector corporate farms' profit margins and THOSE lands could be picked up for a low price and placed in the government food land bank, also to be run directly or subbed out to nonprofit co-ops. If the agricultural capitalists won't sell the lands to the people at this reduced market price, then that's what eminent domain would be about.

The whole reason the HC capitalists were so dead set against even a public option run on the Medicare model was because they couldn't compete, i.e., make ginormous profits off of people's health. This model would be the same in the general welfare sector of agriculture and food.