Inside an enclave: the dynamics of capitalism and rural politics in a post-land reform context

ABSTRACT

There is no doubt that Zimbabwe's Fast Track Land Reform Program resulted in repeasantization. As several studies point out, it also resulted in accumulation from below by a majority of the resettled peasantry. Our study focuses on an area where counter-agrarian reform is in motion and accumulation from below is constrained. In this location, we argue that repeasantization is severely being contested as indicated by the re-emergence of a dual-mode of production and the subsequent ‘virtual’ dispossession and proletarianization of the land reform beneficiaries. Our findings shed more light on the dynamics of capitalism and agrarian politics in a context where land reforms are implemented under neoliberalism. In this enclave, peasants after accessing land through the land reform collectivized their land and parceled it to the downsized and nearby capitalist farming system. The capitalist farming system engages in spatio-temporal fix by moving from one rural site to another as it follows the dictates of accumulation. While the possibility of full-scale land dispossession exists, the current state ownership of land and the peasantry's resistance provided some brakes to full-scale land dispossession. At the same time, the state's limited support to land reform beneficiaries fuels this localized land dispossession. The peasantry's exploitation in this enclave ranges from corvee labor to coercion into the mini-land enclosures; these are implemented by village heads, who are local state functionaries. This study also recasts the relevance of the Marxist framework in understanding rural dynamics more specifically; it revisits Karl Kautsky's arguments on the coexistence thesis of the peasantry and capitalist farming and illustrates the Zimbabwean state's ambivalence with regards to the conditions of peasant and capitalist farming.

KEYWORDS:

• Capitalism
• dispossession
• peasant farming
• capitalist farming
• semi-proletariat
• land reform

Acknowledgements

The authors are indebted to: the Sam Moyo African Institute of Agrarian Studies and the Agrarian South Network for providing a research base during the data collection period, the International Poverty Reduction Center in China (IPRCC) for the financial support, and to the research participants. This paper is part of the JPS Writeshop that took place in Beijing in July 2019; for this we are grateful to the conference organizers and participants for the constructive comments and suggestions. We also thank Tania Eulalia Martinez Cruz, Ricardo Jacobs, Chen Yiyuan, Adnan Shapan and the anonymous reviewers for the comments, suggestions, criticism and advice.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 A1: peasant landholdings up to 6 ha.

2 A2: middle to large scale landholdings from 6 ha up to 1500 ha depending on the agro-ecological zone.

3 LSCF in this article also refers to Large Scale Capitalist Farm.

4 Collectivization refers to a joint action by the peasantry, involving pooling their plots together to form one or several land blocks that are handed over to the LSCF. When the collectivization started it was voluntary; but as the practice became entrenched, there is use of coercion and persuasion by the village leadership and ‘collectivization committees’ as discussed in this article.

5 On ‘pro-poor land reform’ see Borras (2007).

6 Interview with LSCF DM 30 June 2018.

7 Usually the bank loan interest rate in Zimbabwe is pegged between 3% and 12% per annum.

8 For the 2019–2020 farming season the state is mulling halting the program due to challenges such as non-loan repayments by farmers and shortage of forex. However, studies by Mazwi et al. (2019) indicate that in terms of non-loan repayments the large-scale farmers are the largest loan defaulters yet had the highest inputs per capita.

9 Similarly, the average landholding for an A2 farm is 330 ha (Murisa 2011).

10 DM pseudo name for the capitalist farm.

11 The LSCF adopted the term ‘project’ to refer to the land renting process. The term ‘project’ is popularly known in the locality as an activity that is meant to economically empower a person or household. The ruling party and government also casually use the term to refer to any activity that is meant to empower the citizenry.

12 At the start of the land rent, the agreements made were by word of mouth. Written agreements were made between the LSCF and the collectivization committee; as for the individual peasants, they only sign receipt for receipt of land rentals. Nonetheless, even the signed agreement with the committee is not valid in law because they are not commissioned by the Ministry of Agriculture, Lands and Rural Resettlement (Mudimu, Ting, and Nalwimba, forthcoming).

13 Some of the peasants wanted the LSCF to continue with the project and the negotiations lasted for more than 3 months.

14 Interview with the LSCF and a former irrigation team member on June 2017.

15 Interview with an LSCF employee on 13 February 2018.

16 Interview with a key informant on 10 April 2018.

17 Interview with the LSCF on how they were able to mobilize funding, July 2018.

18 In our interview, the LSCF confirmed only hiring other LSCF as specialist managers and not as partners.

19 Our interviews indicate that more than 20 tractors and related equipment were procured by the LSCF between 2003 and 2015.

20 Interview with the peasants on 10 March 2018.

21 Tobacco bale size ranges from 90 to 110 kg.

22 Maize is the staple in Zimbabwe; nationally, 70% of the households grow maize (Moyo 2013).

23 Interview with the LSCF on July 2018.

24 Interviews with the village leaders and the Zimbabwe National Liberation War Veterans Association (ZNLWVA).

Additional information

Funding

The work was supported by International Poverty Reduction Centre of China (IPRCC), Beijing, 2017–2018 Research Grant.

Notes on contributors

George T. Mudimu

George T. Mudimu is a Ph.D student in the College of Humanities and Development Studies, China Agricutural University. He researches land politics, rural politics, social movements, agrarian change and political economy.

Ting Zuo

Ting Zuo is a professor of rural and social security studies in the College of Humanities and Development Studies, China Agricutural University. He has an educational background in environmental economics, natural resource management, conservation biology, and mathematics. He has been working in agriculture and rural development, poverty reduction, community-based natural resource management and rural public policies and governance since 1989. Currently he is researching poverty reduction and rural revitalization in China and other parts of the global South.

Nkumbu Nalwimba

Nkumbu Nalwimba holds a Ph.D in Rural Development and Management from China Agricultural University, and researches foreign aid, agricultural investments, farmer input programs, livelihoods, political economy and land governance.