Neoliberalism has problems particularly when it is not able to produce jobs for masses,and is benefitting skilled middle class. In India about 43% of people are dependent on agriculture for livelihood, and my firm belief is that government must encourage Agriculture related industries with forward and backward linkages,so that people can lift themselves above poverty. But, market forces are not creating the required jobs and manufacturing and services sector which require skilled labour are not able to absorb poor people. With respect to inequality what i believe is,as said: “The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent vice of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.” --Winston Churchill
Market agriculture is an industry particularly sensitive to capital accumulation. In order to compete globally it must be input-intensive and highly automated; agriculture involvement in the United States dropped from 70% to 4% over the past 100 years. The only way to protect workers is to directly protect workers.
To compete globally it has to be input intensive and highly automated,agreed. Yes, this will increase productivity and increase income of farmers.But, ain't automation take away jobs in labour surplus countries like India and China( These are the countries of absolute poverty,um, not so sure about China though)? But, as you are referring to US ( Here relative poverty exists) where involvement went down from 70% to 4%,as it transitioned towards manufacturing and finally towards service sector driven economy. By, agricultural based industries I was thinking to utilise Village based industries model as propounded by Gandhi, in a labour surplus, job deficient country. But,here, in my opinion, you are referring towards Lewis model for Economic development of shifting surplus labour from agriculture (where marginal productivity is almost zero) towards manufacturing sector. You are probably right, India almost skipped manufacturing sector in terms of contribution towards GDP and jumped directly from Agrarian to service Service sector based economy( Which prefers white collar skilled jobs and hence the inequality),and hence we have our story of jobless growth! But with regard to China I can't get the scene, they initially worked very well for increasing agriculture productivity, then under Deng Xiaoping went under transformation towards manufacturing( mostly low value added) , but still poverty and inequality exists there, may be population problem. WIth respect to directly protecting the workers, yes i do feel that liberalisation has resulted in more and more informalisation of economy,and lesser social security measures to workers.But, the current mood of the governments across the world seems to be labour reforms making it pro business. Directly protecting workers may be helpful in US, in India we have to expand manufacturing and business for job creation, so the pro business reforms are taking place here. Okay, let the capital be generated but its redistribution must be effective and government must seriously focus on social sector such as education, health and skilling of workforce.
It comes down to what you want the agriculture for. The US uses its agriculture as a weapon. We give and we taketh away, hedgerow to hedgerow. Thus, we've had ferocious incentive to grow as much food as we can so we can use it for soft power leverage. There's no reason why an agrarian society can't stay agrarian, why a self-sufficient village can't stay self-sufficient. However, you almost have to avoid globalism entirely because the World Bank will totally help you plant your crops with just a cute little loan but you should do it this way and then think of all the money you can spend on schools! and now just another little loan and we'll get that irrigation project up and running and now we own you. So if you want a country competing with the big boys to subsistence farm, you need heavy protections for workers. At least, that's my read on the situation. If you want to be Bhutan, things are a little easier. The basic problem is capital accumulation keeps mildly unsuccessful farmers impoverished and makes mildly successful businessmen wealthy enough to buy and sell their friends. And if you don't strive to protect the former from the latter, that's just what they'll do.
This might be the most optimistic thing I've heard in a while.
It is a viewpoint forged by, in addition to everything else, reading two thirds of this pig. Things basically get better for everybody until a minority gets prosecuted too much and then all hell breaks loose and persecutions screw everyone. That's true from Babylon to Brussels. Welcome back, BTW.