The development of capitalism in the current Mexican agriculture

^{Gonzalez-Estrada (1990)}, classified 2.8 million agricultural production units distributed throughout Mexico and based on multivariate statistical methods identified 18 types of agriculture and key agricultural regions delineated 72 and 187 subregions. He concluded that the dominant and predominant form of production in mexican agriculture is capitalist agriculture. Subsequently, ^{Gonzalez-Estrada (2001)}, after building a classification system of forms or systems of agricultural production, grouped 2 559 070 agricultural production units in nine forms of agricultural production, by geo-economic area, state and municipality. One of its conclusions was that capitalist entrepreneurial agriculture is the dominant form of production and economically dominant in Mexico, it contributed 73.3% of the value of the gross domestic product of agriculture and concentrated 75.9% of the means of production and 70.7% of the acreage.

Not with standing the importance, the above results underestimate the weight of capitalist production in agriculture, since no official statistics on the weight of capitalist land rental is taken into account. In order to correct this bias, ^{Gonzalez-Estrada (2009)}, he studied the two most important crops in Mexico, corn and beans, and made an effort to distinguish the owners of the land dedicated to the production of maize and beans in Mexico, mostly small farmers, tenants who organize these crops. He concluded that however not the predominance of smallholder farms, the production process of these two crops is predominantly corporate-capitalist, because the units of capitalist production grown 68.6% of the maize area and 67.3% of the planted with beans, and provide 77.7% of corn production and 69.9% of the national production of beans.

How explained above, if the smallholder farms of poor peasants predominate in both crops?

The explanation is that one thing is the legal ownership of land and other economic ownership of it. According to ^{Gonzalez-Estrada (2009)}, in the case of corn, about 4.47 million hectares, belonging to land owned by poor farmers are not cultivated by their owners, most of whom are employed in cities or in the country, inside or Out of country. In the case of beans, about 423 890 farmers (70% of the total) do not cultivate their land but the rent for bean production and are mostly employees. All these lands are not cultivated by their owners, but tenants who practice corporate-capitalist forms of production and are guided by the pursuit of maximum profit.

Some researchers have left the wrong idea that the widespread minifundista property is an insurmountable obstacle to the development of the productive forces in the field obstacle. In this regard, it should be clarified that the small holding property, and communal ejido first and then private, certainly at the beginning is not generally suitable for the development of capitalism in agriculture form. But as what ^{Marx (2010b)} said: "the proper form of land ownership creates own capitalist mode of production by subjecting agriculture to the rule of capital, so the (...) small combined rural property with communal regime also become a form appropriate to this production system, much as their legal forms may differ". This is shown by the case of Mexico, where the small smallholding owned by the farmers has not been an obstacle to the development of capitalism in agriculture, as the capitalist lease of land of small farmers the right has the needs of agricultural development (^{Gonzalez- Estrada, 2009}).

Only thus conceiving Mexican agriculture may explain why despite the predominance of smallholder farms, Mexico is one of the major food exporting countries in the world; It is the eighth largest producer of food of agricultural origin, and the main exporter of food to the US; has a network of ten trade agreements with 45 countries and in 2012, the agri-food trade with the world reached 50 579 million, 2.8 times in 2000; exports totaled 22 805 billion and imports, 27 774; It is the fourth producer of chicken meat and egg fifth; It is the eighth largest producer of beef and annually exports more than one million calves to the US; as agribusiness, it ranks first as exporter of beer and the third, in orange juice; It is the fourth largest producer of balanced food; It is one of the three largest exporters of avocado, onion, raspberry, asparagus, cucumber, tomatoes, pumpkins, chili peppers and honey, and finally, agri-food exports show great dynamism with higher remittances levels and tourism receipts (^{SAGARPA, 2012}).

In the phase of intensive development of mexican agriculture

Depeasantization of Mexican agriculture and the ownership and predominance of capitalist agriculture, coupled with the existence of more than five million farm workers and the reform of Article 27 of the Constitution, which fits the minifundista regime to the needs of capitalism in agriculture, mean that Mexican agriculture has completed extensive phase of its development and now goes through the stage II, capital intensive development and industrialization (^{Gonzalez-Estrada, 2002} and ²⁰⁰¹). According to ^{Mandel (1987)}, Stage II of agricultural development is characterized by: a) the increasing conversion of the agricultural production process in an industrial process, b) the increasing intensification of capital investment, national and transnational, per unit surface; c) mechanization of all agricultural tasks and intensive use science and technology; d) the accelerated development of the division of labor; e) reducing the time of turnover of capital; and f) increasing productivity.

Transnational in agriculture in Mexico

Those structural changes in Mexican agriculture should be added: the liberalization of foreign trade in Mexico, deregulation of the economy and liberalization of the capital market, which has led to significant capital flows to Mexico in the form of portfolio investments and in the form of foreign direct investment; there have been very significant domestic and foreign investment in an increasingly important producer of food agricultural system part: in production, in food services, marketing system and sales and agribusiness (^{Reardon, 2002}; ^{FAO, 2003}). These changes represent a rapid consolidation of the process of trans-nationalization of Mexican agriculture, industry marketing and industrialization of agricultural products. At the same time, they also represent the increasing exclusion and impoverishment of the majority of the rural poor (^{FAO, 2003}).

What has been the penetration of foreign capital and transnational corporations in Mexican agriculture?

Transnational corporations involved in all stages of production, distribution and consumption of agricultural products. Participate in: seed production, production and sale of agrochemicals, finance, purchase, storage and sale of agricultural products, production and sale of agricultural machinery and implements, in import and export and industrialization of farm products. According to ^{González (2009)}, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), foreign and Mexican transnational corporations have control over 10% of food production, produced under a scheme of capitalist contract farming. The crops that have a higher incidence of foreign direct investment in the US They are: tomatoes, tomato paste, onions, lettuce, asparagus, broccoli, cauliflower, cantaloupe, strawberries (^{Bolling and Valdez, 2004}). According to ^{SAGARPA, (2013)}, in 2012 there were in the country five thousand hectares planted with strawberries: strawberry, raspberry, blackberry and blueberry, located in Michoacan, Jalisco, Baja California and Colima.

With a hundred thousand employees, there were 464 977 tonnes, with a value of 550 million dollars. The Secretariat plans to reach 10 thousand hectares in five years and double profits. The main companies producing strawberries are: Driscoll’s, M. Steta, Aldo Mares and Berrymex. In the production and industrialization of strawberry involved include: Ocean Garden, Pet Co. (Pet Milk), Imperial Frozen Foods, Del Mar and Rarnsay Laboratories, Bimbo, Marbrand, Betters Foods Sales e Intermex, Griffin y Holder. The importance of Mexico as an exporter of strawberries is shown with the following two facts: Mexico is the leading exporter raspberries and blackberries to the US, accounting for 96% of all imports, and (^{Muratalla et al., 2013}) all blackberry consumed in Europe comes from Mexico (^{SAGARPA, 2013)}. Perhaps this said Feder (1981) that agriculture, agribusiness and transnational corporations in the US They move increasingly towards Mexico.

Transnational production and sale of machinery, seeds and inputs

The world seed market represents 27 000 million dollars in sales, of which Monsanto, DuPont (Pioneer) and Syngenta, participating with 53% of the world total (^{ETC Group, 2012}). In 2009, the global agrochemical market recorded sales of 39 468 million, of which Syngenta (19%), Bayer CropScience (17%), BASF (11%), Monsanto (10%), Dow AgroSciences (9%) and DuPont (5%) participated with 71% of the world total (^{ETC Group 2012}). These corporations also dominate the agrochemical market of Mexico. The following transnational corporations dominate the production of agricultural machinery in the world and in Mexico: New Holland (60%), John Deere (26%), Massey Ferguson (13%), International Harvester, Ford Motor Company, Caterpillar, and Ford (^{ETC Group, 2012}).

Transnationals in agribusiness and the collection of agricultural products

Transnational companies also have a growing share in the agricultural industry, mainly through contract farming and vertical integration of activities (Byeong-Seon, 2006). Market dominance has become a necessity of survival for large businesses. The retail worldwide agribusiness activities, collection and trade had 2009 revenue of $ 7 billion in the metric system, of which Wal-Mart accounted for 25.5% and Carefour 13.9% (^{ETC Group, 2012}).

Agribusiness and agricultural products collection corporations play an important role in Mexico. The country has 130 transnational corporations in the food industry, 33 of them are global and have more than 300 establishments. Just over 80% of them are of US origin, others are Swiss, Italian, Japanese and French (Soto- Mora, 2001). According to ^{Ramirez (2012)}, the program for prevention and risk management, operated by support and services for agricultural marketing, lists among its beneficiaries: Cargill, Gamesa, Bimbo, Bunge, Sukarne, Maizoro, Bachoco, among others. Proof of this are the 386 million 884 thousand 829 pesos delivered. Bachoco earned 120 million 803 thousands 870; Cargill, 111 million 665 thousands 351; Gamesa, 102 million 526 thousands; Minsa, 42 million 765 thousand 525, and Sabritas, 9 million 124 thousands 80 pesos in subsidies to corn and wheat.

Approximately 60% of the domestic grain market is in the hands of a few corporations: Maseca, Cargill, Archer Daniel’s Midland, Bimbo, Minsa, Molinos de Mexico, Gamesa Altex, Bachoco, Lala y Malta de México. These companies import, purchase of the country's crops, store them, transport them to places of consumption, distributed and an important part of the industrializing ^{Juarez-Sanchez (2012)}. Livestock foreign corporations operating in the country are: a) Smithfield world-leader in the production of pigs; b) Tyson, Pilgrim’s Pride and Cargill world in the production of chickens-leaders; and c) IBP and Tyson global production of beef-leaders. Mexico all have in large production units, technified and intensive to supply the domestic market and export to (^{De Ita, 2013}) Asian markets. They represent a very substantial demand for yellow corn imports from the US

Transnationals and land purchase

Richer governments and some large transnational corporations have been buying and renting land worldwide, mainly in African countries south of the Sahara, which accelerates the process of concentration of the means of agricultural production on a global scale. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt, South Korea and Jarch Capital US they rented or bought 30 million hectares in Sudan; South Africa and China, 12.8 million hectares in the Congo; China, 2 million hectares in Zambia; Saudi Arabia, 2.1 million hectares in Indonesia; Guernsey and Global Farming, 1.23 million hectares in Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay; Sweden and Saudi Arabia, 900 000 hectares in Tanzania; Egypt 840 000 ha in Uganda; China, 700 000 ha in Laos, and the United Arab Emirates, 324 000 ha in Pakistan (^{ETC Group, 2012}; ^{The Economist, 2009a}). Alpcot Agro bought in 2008; 128 000 ha in Russia and the Bank Morgan Stanley bought 40,000 ha in Ukraine (^{The Economist, 2009b}). In Madagascar, half of the arable land (1.3 million hectares) was offered for rent to the Korean company Daewoo, which provoked a popular rebellion and the overthrow of the government (^{Perez-Zamorano, 2009}). In Mexico the purchase of land by transnational corporations is not allowed, why go to the rental of land and contract farming.

^{Piketty (2014)} mentions that in 2010 the net foreign assets owned by Japan amounted to 70% of their national income, and Germany, 50%. Based on this, he asks, "to what extent some countries will become property of others throughout the XXI century?".

TNCs in the export and import of agricultural products

The rapid expansion of exports of the agricultural sector increased profitability of agricultural export activities and attracted foreign direct investment in these sectors, which had two consequences: a) increasing the scale of agricultural export companies; and b) growing transnationalization of production and agricultural export activities of the Mexican countryside. In the case of Brazil, for example, the agricultural export sector is highly concentrated: 17 largest companies control 43% of exports; 42 largest companies control 60%; 156 control 80%. By contrast, 4 000 companies contribute 1% of the sector's exports (^{Jank et al., 1999}).

The most important operative in the global food market entities are transnational corporations (^{FAO, 2003}). It is for this reason that the investigation of food prices based only in the study of domestic markets for agricultural products is incomplete, insufficient and distorting reality. The domain and dominance of a few huge national and transnational in major corporation’s agricultural markets has changed the economy of the agricultural sector in Mexico.

According to ^{FAO (2003)}, large corporations involved in the production of flour in the fat of hundreds of thousands of calves, in agribusiness and in modern retail chains tend to put downward pressure on prices grains and agricultural products in general. Large corporations involved in the commodities futures markets benefit from price volatility, because they participate speculate in these markets, so uncertainty may further increase profits. Farmers and consumers, by contrast, have a strong interest in the stability of prices.

These large corporations have great market power that allows them to influence to their advantage in prices,benefit from trade liberalization and their influence on the country's agricultural policy (^{Redfern, 2002}). According to ^{Redfern (2002)}, the World Bank estimated that for the period 1975-1993, the market power of large multinational corporations allowed to set artificially low prices, which meant a loss of 96 000 million for producers seven commodities worldwide. In 1993 the value of world coffee production at market prices was 30 000 million dollars, of which coffee farmers received only 40%; in 2002, it was 50 000 coffee farmers only received 16%.

The large transnational and national capital markets retail

According to Friedland (1991), transnational corporations engaged in retail trade are now the main link between farmers and consumers, which have become the dominant force in commercial activities related to the production of countryside. Byeong-Seon (2006) cites the case of Cargill, whose activities are truly global and have to do with all areas of agricultural and livestock production.

Mexico, meanwhile, has lived since 1990 rapid growth of supermarkets. In 1980, supermarkets served 20% of Mexicans (^{Biles, 2008}); in 2000, supermarkets contributed 45% to total retail sales (^{Reardon and Berdegue 2002}). Today, it is estimated that supermarket chains: Wal-Mart, Comercial Mexicana, Soriana, Chedraui, Costco, Sams Club and Care Foods, among others, represent 60% of total food sales at retail (^{Reardon et al., 2003}). In 2006, Wal-Mart had 593 stores in the country and recorded 18,500 million in sales; Soriana, with 234 stores had sales of 5,400 million; 205 Comercial Mexicana stores sold goods amounting to 4.2 thousand million; Giant, with 278 stores had sales totaling 3,100 million, and Chedraui, with 96 stores, reported sales of 2 400 million (^{Biles, 2008}). That rapid growth has radically changed not only the retail sales sector in Mexico, but all agrifood chains and agribusiness that supply, in the following ways (^{FAO, 2003}): a) imposition of standards of quality and safety for consumption; b) development of productive activities by contract; c) development collection centers and wholesaling, which gives them greater market power; d) purchases and higher sales has also transforming the exporters.

The large restaurant chains also represent an important demand for farm products. In Mexico there are more than 500 establishments Kentucky Fried Chicken and Pizza Hut; McDonald's has 380 restaurants; Burger King, 427.

Transformation of agricultural policy

The needs of capitalism in agriculture at this stage II, intensification and industrialization, coupled with the needs of transnational capital in Mexico, have changed Mexico's agricultural policy. Feder (1981) said the Mexican government's ability to define its agricultural policy and its position on transnational interests is increasingly limited. ^{Burbach and Flynn (1980)} emphasize the close relationship growing stronger, between transnational corporations and the government. Byeong-Seon (2006) cites the case of the working group for agricultural policy Agricultural Policy Working Group (APWG), which was created solely to handle lobbying activities of agricultural corporations like Cargill, Monsanto and Nabisco.

According to Woodrow Wilson: "a country is owned and dominated by the capital it has invested" ^{Galeano (2014)} and according to ^{Bennett and Sharpe (1985)}, the economic policy of Mexico in the last 150 years has been defined by their relationship of dependence on the world capitalist system, primarily with respect to US By analogy, one can surmise that from 1990 to date, the national capital and transnational corporations have had a growing influence on the definition of agricultural policies, since however predominating minifundista property in the countryside and most peasants are poor or miserable, production units with domestic capital and large international corporations with huge market power, dominate agricultural production, the supply of inputs, purchasing and internal and external marketing, financing and industrialization of agricultural products, all of which should have important political implications.

Following ^{Gonzalez-Estrada (2002)} we can say that the markets in Mexico, now free, have grown considerably in scale of operations and diversity and complexity, however, they are not efficient nor have they brought with developed it significant improvement in the welfare of Mexicans. Vertical integration and the growing trans- nationalization of the agricultural sector and in general the food production sector requires the attention of the government of Mexico. According to ^{FAO (2003)}, this is an area of regulation that should receive more attention from the authorities, due to the effects of third country markets and because of the effect on prices has market power of large corporations and their interference in domestic food production.

Mexico's agricultural policy is not having the expected and required impacts. The then president of Mexico, Felipe Calderon, said the federal government spends much in agriculture and that, however, the results are poor. One explanation of this is that the potential benefits of the instruments of agricultural policy are mediated and modified by the dynamics of the interests of the national capital and transnational corporations involved in the Mexican countryside in the activities of: production, storage, transport, marketing, financing, import and export. The other cause is the mismatch of agricultural policy with the structural changes observed in Mexican agriculture during the period 1970-2015.