Would Karl Marx be right after all?

The early years of the twenty-first century have not been good for global capitalism. An international credit crisis and a widespread recession since 2008, with all their attendant anxieties and miseries, have unsurprisingly shaken public support for free-market processes – especially within many of capitalism’s traditional strongholds. In addition, with the recent Covid-19 pandemic-induced supply chain disruption and economic aftershocks, Ukraine’s first war in Europe in decades and its resulting serious energy crisis, the globalized economies of the world are facing a combination of domestic recessions questioning their welfare models, leading to rising interest rates, high inflation drifting poor and rich further apart, deepening negative climate effects and serious geopolitical uncertainty.

“Rarely do so many volatile business conditions descend at once on the world” and “Unless systemic risks are addressed, the promise of a ‘decade of action’ may become a decade of uncertainty and fragility,” warn the organizers of this year’s World Economic Forum meet at Davos from January 16 to 20, 2023 with the theme ‘Cooperation in a Fragmented World.’ But what are the ‘systemic risks’?

Many mainstream and socialist economists have an understanding that a capitalist market economy is not an automatically self-regulating system; rather, it periodically enters periods of self-generated breakdown or ‘systemic risks’. More than 150 years back, none other than Karl Marx called these periods of risk as “crises”; today, we use a gentler term, “recessions.” It looks like Marxism, which never went away, is back. Capitalism, which was for a time seen as being akin to a law of nature, something permanent and unchangeable, is now being discussed and critiqued even by its champions.

None other than billionaire Ray Dalio, the founder of the largest Hedgefonds, and author of the bestseller ‘Principles for Success’ meant for investment bankers comes to a strong conclusion that capitalism must be fundamentally reformed if it would like to survive further because richness and prosperity are distributed unequally and there is no room for ensuing equal opportunities for all. The ‘Financial Times,’ an international mouthpiece of financial markets, says it is high time that neoliberalism exits from the world stage and makes room for the state. International corporations starting from Bosch to Goldman Sachs strongly discuss today the immediate necessity of keeping the societal interests above those of the private shareholders.

It is widely believed in international schools of thought that mainly three important factors have led to a renewed interest in left alternatives to neoliberal capitalism and to which Marx is “clearly relevant to.” These are the persistence and currently deepening of the 2008 financial crisis until today, with the strong warning that chronic instability still underpins capitalism; the astonishing growth in serious economic and social inequality and concentration of wealth in few property owning classes in the last decades, and warnings about the prospects of mass unemployment currently emerging as automation proceeds towards platform capitalism. The importance of crisis theory.

It looks like Marxism, which never went away, is back. Actually, Karl Marx lived in the 19th century, an era very different from our own, if also one in which many of the features of today’s society were beginning to take shape. Coming back to ‘systemic risks,’ the deeper understanding of the drive towards crisis is central to Marx’s analysis of capitalism and to his arguments for the possibility and necessity of revolutionary change. For Marx, the existence of inequality or poverty alone is not what turns workers against the capitalist system. These problems have always been a part of the everyday workings of any “healthy” capitalist economy. Of greater social and ideological impact is the insecurity, instability, and ruin that economic crises periodically inflict on the lives of the working-class and all toiling people.

Marx presents his crisis theory in its most developed form as ‘Law of Tendency for the Rate of Profit to Fall’ which is considered in every respect the most important law of modern political economy. A key characteristic of these theoretical factors is that none of them are natural or accidental in origin but instead arise from systemic elements of capitalism as a mode of production and basic social order. In Marx’s words, “The real barrier of capitalist production is capital itself.” Already in the second-half of nineteenth century, Marx took note of “a new financial aristocracy, a new variety of parasites in the shape of promoters, speculators and simply nominal directors; a whole system of swindling and cheating by means of corporation promotion, stock issuance and stock speculation.” This, he observed, was closely linked with enhanced role of credit both as accelerator of growth and, when stretched beyond a limit, as harbinger of crisis.

This is explained by him very interestingly from his time as a business and financial correspondent for the New York Tribune in the 1850s, then the world’s largest newspaper. In discussing the crisis of 1857, generally regarded as the first worldwide recession, Marx focused on the policies of Crédit Mobilier, the world’s first investment bank. He noted that the bank’s statutes allowed it to borrow up to 10 times its capital. It then used the funds to purchase shares or fund IPOs (Initial Public Offering) of French railroad and industrial corporations, greatly increasing output. But when no purchasers were found for the expanded production, the bank discovered that the stocks it had bought had fallen in value, making it difficult to repay its loans. Now, just replace Crédit Mobilier with Lehman Brothers or the Anglo-Irish Bank of 2008-2009, and French railroad and industrial firms with Nevada or Irish real estate, and we have a fair picture of a major cause of the last financial crisis before us. This is absolutely in conformity with Marx’s crisis theory and the main concern here is that we seem to be, indeed, heading deeper into this crisis currently!

Since the turn of 21st century, the rise of information monopolies has created a ‘platform capitalism,’ yet another method of making money out of money bypassing the hassles of production and the rapid spread of internet connectivity. These online or digital platforms do not own productive facilities or inventories (Uber for example owns no vehicles; Facebook creates no content; Alibaba and Amazon have no inventories) but provide the vital “interface” between sellers and buyers/users, in the process stealing, assembling, using and misusing huge quantities of our data. For instance, the “Big Five” – Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, Google – represent more than 20% of the market and companies like Uber, Lyft, Airbnb, and Paypal are all worth tens of billions of dollars and increasingly dominate our economies and wield tremendous influence over our culture, social interactions, and political systems.

However, again here the same phenomenon of recession Karl Marx noted in 1857 is slowly emerging. For example, as the bulk of Elon Musk’s wealth is tied up in electric vehicles Tesla (TSLA), whose stock plunged 65% in 2022 as demand weakened, he lost a record $200 billion. Amazon’s founder Jeff Bezos says mass layoffs of 10,000 in 2022 and 2023 are inevitable due to recession. Google is expected to fire nearly 10,000 employees for poor performance, including in India. Meta (earlier known as Facebook) is firing 11,000 people, and Twitter has fired half of its workforce. Global financial institutes conclude that like US, nearly all Eurozone economies are currently in a recession. Global Risks Report 2023 presented by World Economic Forum for discussion at Davos speaks of a set of risks that the world is facing today, such as inflation, cost of-living crises, trade wars, capital outflows from emerging markets, widespread social unrest, geopolitical confrontation, and the spectre of nuclear warfare – which few of this generation’s business leaders and public policymakers have experienced. These are being amplified by comparatively new developments in the global risks landscape, including unsustainable levels of debt, a new era of low growth, low global investment and de-globalization, a decline in human development, growing pressure of climate change impacts, all converging to shape a unique, uncertain, and turbulent decade to come. Global capitalism seems to be indeed in deep crisis. Given this background, let us hope that representatives of national governments, business and civil society meeting next week at Davos will be able to design options of shared responsibilities, which are not just aimed at business as usual, but genuinely understand and address the root causes of the risks produced periodically in the systems we live in today.

Source: https://www.thehansindia.com/hans/opinion/news-analysis/would-karl-marx-be-right-after-all-777988

Crossover for corporates

The three farm Bills green signal corporate agriculture and parting of ways with the nationally-accepted ‘Small Farmer Economy’

Amid strong protests by opposition parties, Parliament passed three agriculture sector Bills recently without meaningful discussion and voting. The opposition parties have called them “anti-farmers”. The genuine issues and fears flagged by them include gradual end of Minimum Support Price (MSP), irrelevance of state-controlled Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) ‘mandis’, risk of losing out land rights under contract farming, reduction in price of farm produce due to market domination by big agri-businesses and exploitation of farmers by big contractors through contract farming practices.

The three Bills have to be seen holistically, as they are interdependent. Their basic objective clearly is to create enabling conditions to establish corporate agriculture in the long run, including foreign direct investment (FDI) in the retail sector. In other words, for the first time after Independence, India is preparing to part ways with its nationally accepted ‘Small Farmer Economy’ concept.

The Three Bills

The key provisions of these Bills are intended to help small and marginal farmers (86% of total farmers), who don’t have means to either bargain for their produce to get a better price or invest in technology, to improve productivity. The Bill on agri market — The Farmers Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Bill, 2020 — seeks to allow farmers to sell their produce outside APMC ‘mandis’ to whoever they want. Most farmer organisations agree that there is excessive political interference and want reform as far as the functioning of mandis is concerned.

The Bill on contract farming — Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Bill, 2020 — allows them to enter into a contract with agri-business firms or large retailers on pre-agreed prices of their produce. This is supposed to help small and marginal farmers as the legislation will transfer the risk of market unpredictability from the farmer to the sponsor.

The Essential Commodities (Amendment) Bill, 2020, seeks to remove commodities like cereals, pulses, oilseeds, edible oils, onion and potatoes from the list of essential commodities. This means there would be no imposition of stockholding limits on such items except under extraordinary circumstances such as war and natural calamities. This provision is expected to attract private sector/foreign direct investment into the agriculture sector.

Adverse Implications

Agriculture, together with horticulture, animal husbandry, fisheries and agro-forestry, is the main source of income for our population and is the most obvious engine for social equity and economic growth. However, due to small holdings, fragmentation, low investment capacities, lack of access to technologies, credit and marketing institutions, small farming economy is in a serious crisis.

Moreover, agri-food systems are undergoing rapid transformation. Increasing concentration in processing, trading, marketing and retailing is being observed in the production-distribution chains. So, contract farming is seen by proponents as a way to raise small-farm income by delivering technology and market information to small farmers, incorporating them into remunerative new markets. Does this work? In reality, this strategy facilitates agri-business firms to pass production risk to farmers, taking advantage of an unequal bargaining relationship. There is also a concern that contract farming will worsen rural income inequality by favouring larger farmers.

Though APMCs account for less than a fourth of total agricultural trade in the country, they do play an important role of price discovery essential for agricultural trade and production choices. The vilification of APMCs and the middlemen who facilitate trade in these mandis reflects a poor understanding of the functioning of agricultural markets. In the absence of any collective governance system of farmers, the middlemen are a part of the larger ecosystem of agricultural trade, with deep links between farmers and traders.

The dominant concern regarding MSP has been expressed by farmers of Punjab and Haryana. They are genuinely concerned about the continuance of the MSP-based public procurement given the large-scale procurement operations in these States. These fears gain strength with the experience of States such as Bihar, which abolished APMCs in 2006. After the abolition of mandis, farmers in Bihar on average received lower prices compared with the MSP for most crops. For example, as against the MSP of Rs 1,850 a quintal for maize, most farmers in Bihar reported selling their produce at less than Rs 1,000 a quintal. Despite the shortcomings and regional variations, farmers still see the APMC mandis as essential to ensuring the survival of the MSP regime.

World’s Experiences

As experiences from other parts of the world show, multinational companies are not famous for improving the situation of farmers by paying better prices. They need reliable supplies and, therefore, favour contract farming and large-scale suppliers because they are more reliable, which gags the small farmers and pushes prices down. They will definitely induce more efficient supply chains through improved infrastructure (roads, cold storages) but who will profit from these efficiencies is the question.

They will certainly introduce new technology, more variety in choice, but there is no guarantee that they will source this only from India as the earlier 30% mandatory local sourcing in FDI has been scrapped by this government. They are usually able to achieve price reductions through economies of scale, but certainly at the cost of a huge number of jobs loss in informal traditional sectors. The quality of food produced and the environmental implications of this production are also under severe criticism worldwide.

Shadows of Crony Capitalism

Economic success becomes premised on people’s capacity to harness government power to rig the game in their favour. The market economy’s outward form is preserved, but its basic protocols and institutions are slowly subverted by businesses seeking to secure preferential treatment from regulators, legislators, and governments. This can take the form of bailouts, subsidies, monopolies, access to “no-bid” contracts, price controls, preferential tax treatment, tariff protection, and special access to government-provided credit at below-market interest rates, to name just a few.

Ever since the decision towards 100% FDI in retail market, along with scrapping of earlier condition to procure 30% local sourcing, was approved by the present government in January 2018, the path towards these Bills was clear. Along with favourable conditions for the entry of FDIs, these Billsaim to do away with government interference in agricultural trade by creating trading areas free of middlemen and government taxes outside the structure of APMCs along with removing restrictions of private stockholding of agricultural produce. Given this background, farmers see these Bills as part of the larger agenda of corporatisation of agriculture and withdrawal of government support.

Although the government has clarified that these Bills do not imply withdrawal of procurement by the State at MSP, there is a genuine fear among farmers, their organisations and State governments about the true intentions of the Central government. The mistrust is not unfounded given the track record of this government on many issues, including demonetisation, introduction of Goods and Services Tax (GST), CAA, privatisation efforts of railways, airports, insurance, defence, power and so on. The entry, in a big way, of two of the biggest corporate groups (Adani and Reliance) in food and agricultural retail and their timing have added to their fears.

Collective Action  

The last decades of reforms and privatisation in India have convincingly proved that the market has absolutely little to offer to a large number of producers, savers, consumers and borrowers. These are millions of small and marginal farmers, agricultural labourer, artisans and people working in petty business in informal sectors. In today’s India, where economic reforms and privatisation have shown little or no impact in combating rural poverty, special promotion programmes, collective action and cooperatives undoubtedly have more to offer to economic growth and social development than most other forms of enterprise.

Telangana Chief Minister K Chandrashekhar Rao has launched a comprehensive agriculture policy to support and revive the economic viability of small farmers. Apart from recent introduction of new cropping pattern under which farmers need to cultivate crops in demand as recommended by the government to organise their remunerative marketing through own corporation, Telangana is providing free electricity, direct transfer of subsidies through investment support, free insurance, substantially increasing irrigation, crop procurement and other input facilities as well as extension services and reforms in revenue and administration to farmers in the State. This promotion, which also saw about 40% of budgetary allocations to agriculture and allied activities, ended six decades of agriculture crisis in Telangana and for the first time, small and marginal farmers have started producing large quantities of agricultural output for profitable marketing.

The efforts of the Telangana government to organise farmers and their organisations through their own Rythu Sanghalu to overcome economies of scale address precisely this gap in designing an ideal value chain and disseminating knowledge to them. This enables small farmers collectively to compete in the market through increasing their bargaining power. An ideal value chain looks forward to bring all the stakeholders engaged in production, processing system, financial and marketing agencies.

An efficient linkage of various stakeholders improves production, price realisation and profitability. This inevitably needs collective action by the producers, or in other words, they have to organise their agricultural production efficiently through their corporations, producer organisations or cooperative enterprises. This can be any producer organisation, Producers Company (Companies Act of 1956), Producers Cooperatives, registered Farmers Federations (Rythu Sanghalu), Mutually Aided Cooperative Society (1995 Act) etc.

Cooperative Economies

Today, there is an alternative, secure, stable and sustainable model of business owned and controlled by 800 million people worldwide. Agricultural cooperatives with over 400 million member farmers are responsible for over 50% of agricultural production and marketing in the world. It is a model of business that is not at the mercy of stock markets or corporates because it relies instead on member funds for its value; and is not subject to executive manipulation and greed because it is controlled by local people for local people.

It is a business where the profits are not just distributed to its shareholders, but are returned to those who trade with the business, thus keeping the wealth generated by local businesses in the local community for the good of the local environment and families. This is the cooperative sector of the global economy, which employs 100 million people worldwide. It is no coincidence that the world’s most successful and stable economies generally also happen to have the world’s most cooperative economies. There are a number of successful examples from the US and European community. Specific examples from India and Telangana also endorse this trend.  (See Shining Examples)

So, let us not forget that as an alternative to private, corporate enterprises favoured by neoliberal economic policies, there are indeed viable people-centred economic models to combine efficiency and equity, which are member-driven rather than investor-driven. There can undoubtedly be regionally organised corporations, companies and cooperatives in agriculture, horticulture, fisheries in producer and consumer spheres, artisans as small and medium business enterprises (including textile and powerloom enterprises) etc, thus establishing socio-economic stability to their members as well as the community.

Shining examples of Cooperative Economies

Amul

Dairy cooperative Amul is jointly owned by about 28 lakh milk producers in Gujarat. It is the largest food brand in India and world’s largest pouched milk brand with an annual turnover of $1,700 million.

Telangana’s Mulkanoor

Mulkanoor Cooperative Rural Bank and Marketing Society Ltd of Telangana is another role model. It has a turnover of over Rs 100 crore with total lending in a year exceeding Rs 20 crore and doesn’t have a single defaulter. Its operations range from dairies to a modern rice mill. But few know that Mulkanoor has one of the largest paddy seed growing and selling operations in the country. It consistently places the second biggest request for paddy foundation seeds to the State’s Prof Jayashankar State Agriculture University (after the State’s seed development corporation). Every year, it lifts 40 tonnes of foundation seeds of 13 paddy varieties, for multiplication into certified seeds for sale to farmers. It produces about ten million tonnes of paddy seeds that are sold across the country.

Karimnagar Dairy

Yet another cooperative success story is Karimnagar District Milk Producers Mutually Aided Cooperative Union Limited known as Karimnagar Dairy with 70,000 farmers as members. It has achieved a distinction in the Telangana region with procurement of two lakh litres per day and sales of 1.7 lakh litres per day. This has been possible through their excellent marketing network, introducing hybrid milch animals, promoting growth of fodder, constant veterinary services, etc.

Original post: https://telanganatoday.com/crossover-for-corporates