I’m not sure I would call that a monopoly though. Most farmland is owned by the operator, and a large portion of leased farmland is owned by retired farmers, descendants, or widows. Roughly 10% of land is owned by some sort of corporate or trust landlord. (This data is a tad old, but my general sense from subsequent years is that land transfers were mainly through inheritance, not sale, implying the situation is similar today). Price increases in land is due to different forces, and consolidation occurs mostly within communities (i.e. a big family farm purchases a small family farm, or when a farmer dies their kid retains the land and rents it, these are the processes behind consolidation and lack of land access, imo).

There’s this idea called World Systems theory, that divides the world into core and peripheral countries, with the core countries extracting resources (natural, financial, or labor) and sends pollution back. This is maintained by military and/or economic power. That’s the framework where this would be considered colonial. Personally, I prefer the term neocolonial

Can you elaborate on land ownership monopolies?

For sure. I think trying to preserve these tools is a bit of a waste of time. But extending their lifespan is always a win in my book