The market is the wolf of the market

It is generally accepted that the market, which plays a fundamental role in the functioning of the capitalist system, acts as a kind of 'invisible hand' in both resource allocation and the maintenance of social order by playing a decisive role in very fundamental issues such as what will be produced in the economy and to whom and at what price production will be distributed based on income distribution.

Markets provide these highly complex transactions without being connected to any computer system and in a democratic environment where oppressive relationships are not used. In this respect, markets play a dominant role in the functioning of capitalist systems. However, an important point to note is that markets are micro-level tools, and in the overall functioning or depending on the user's purpose, they can in many cases violate social ethical rules and damage the fundamental principles that cement and sustain society. For example, kidney trafficking, heroin trafficking, or various other ethical and irregular transactions that can enter the market can be subject to market transactions. In short, the social consequences of the market, which is a double-edged sword, emerge in relation to its mode of use and purpose. Therefore, even though every market transaction is shown as being carried out in a liberal environment, in terms of its social consequences, it can also be used (or forced to be used) as a tool that disrupts peace and even causes the fragmentation of society, and it can even be used intentionally in this direction!

The intensive privatization processes exhibited by the government so far, and the fact that even what is left in stock is being put on the market these days, may lead to serious problems that may not be foreseen in the future, even if not specifically intended. For example, the sale of public assets under the name of privatization by putting them on the market can lead to the formation and intensification of problems both internationally and within the country, such as public authority versus economic authority in terms of the use and functioning of markets, economic occupation versus national independence, and economic power versus social justice. In this article, I want to briefly discuss the possible multiple consequences of markets, which appear extremely innocent at first glance, in the context of national independence.

Privatization, the most toxic tool of neoliberal policies, was fervently proposed on the grounds that the power of the public sector disrupts market functioning against the power of the private sector, witnessed heated debates during the Özal era, and significant progress has been made during the AKP era. The remaining few valuable public institutions are also being laid on the altar of privatization by the Şimşek-Erkan team, who were brought into politics at the last minute.

Although it has been discussed all over the globe where privatization came from, what it does or does not do, and whose interests it serves or does not serve, in a way that even the deaf sultan could hear, and its negatives have been revealed, we are still pinning our hopes on privatization like a person who has fallen into the sea. It is clear that the privatization practice put on the ramp at this stage is aimed at meeting at least a portion of the need for money that could not even be found from Arab countries. The latest wave of privatization placed on the ramp by the Şimşek-Erkan team is unfortunately a very tragic situation that means nothing more than a bankrupt merchant selling his ancestral home.

In the past, armies were used for occupation and looting because in those periods, the growing population needed land for soil and agriculture. However, today, not only is the population not growing at its old speed, but agricultural work is not done on the country's own soil; either land is rented in other countries, or sufficient food can be produced in small areas by increasing productivity through industrial agriculture. Under today's conditions, third-world countries are already ready to feed developed countries for next to nothing as producers of agriculture and raw materials. All that remains is wealth, that is, the provision of money. The money business is also solved in financial markets. In this case, armed forces can be used to support central economies through arms sales in local wars or against opposing ideological systems, as in the communist era. However, the market is an important functioning and transaction environment that the capitalist system can never give up. Privatizations are anonymous-looking political mechanisms tasked with creating new markets and profit areas for the private sector.

So, if the system is capitalism, what kind of negativity could there be in creating a market and profit area for the private sector through privatizations in the sense of selling public assets? This is exactly the crux of the matter. To explain this process, it is inevitable to first examine this important process: The expansion of markets may be seen as positive at the micro scale, but in the long run, the expansion of markets leads to the shrinking of the market environment itself at the macro scale. The master Marx expressed this inverse relationship by saying that the capitalist system produces its own gravediggers.

Let me try to briefly explain why the market is a market wolf by applying this great expression to the micro-application we call the market. This explanation is based on the exclusionary effect of markets, which cannot be clearly stated in mainstream economics. Since markets work with monetary lubricants, they exclude those without monetary power at the very beginning stage and do not include them in the system. But it doesn't end there. Markets also eliminate some powers and cast them out of the system by making selections based on the principle of wealth power during the functioning process. The most typical example of this is the labor market.

In the labor market, which is stated to be formed according to labor supply and demand, some people cannot be included in the system at the beginning and join the army of the unemployed. Those who are included in the system may also become increasingly impoverished because they cannot receive wages equal to their production productivity. Indeed, the 'crocodile jaw' model, which has been dominant in economic literature in recent times, describes that while labor productivity increases, the share it receives from value-added decreases, whereas the share of capital increases. Thus, it is seen that in the market process, which is perceived/made to be perceived as a democratic process, the strong can be a tool of domination over the weak.

Recent privatizations are also changing the dominance relationship between the parties. Public assets, in addition to being public savings, are also the economic guarantee and symbol of the public authority's dominance over the private sector. In the context of the formation and implementation of national policies by pro-people governments, economic power is extremely important alongside the administrative or judicial power of the public. Even if the sales value of public goods is equal to the return they provide in a certain period, the loss of the asset means the erosion of public wealth itself and, in parallel, public power. Especially, the sale of public assets to foreign firms also puts the country in a politically subordinate position in exchange for a certain amount of foreign currency inflow. In addition to the victimization experienced in the international arena, the severe effect of the market in distorting income distribution within the country also victimizes the masses of the people.

The privatization of public assets leads to a large-scale increase in markets within the country. When we think of this process under the effect of markets distorting income distribution, we can foresee that the number of individuals who will not be able to enter the markets in the future will increase, and therefore, while existing markets grow within themselves, the possibility of new markets is blocked. Analogous to Braudel's statement that 'competition kills competition in the long run,' markets also block the way for new markets by distorting income distribution in the long run.

One final sentence on the sale of public assets is this: if the closure of the current account deficit in addition to the public deficit makes such a sale of public wealth necessary, what policy will be followed in that period since deficits will continue to form after the assets to be sold are exhausted? The government must strongly realize that a country of 85 million cannot reach a port by selling the assets inherited from its ancestors. Likewise, the people must also realize that one cannot reach social survival by constantly bringing a cadre that prioritizes political survival to power with such policies!

The real issue is the understanding that the country's salvation is possible not by building empty buildings based on public bank loans with the AKP's dirty policy, but by turning to production, which is described in economic literature as a tradable commodity. For this, this government and our people who bring it to power must now understand that schools should not become imam-hatip schools but should turn to raising enlightened and questioning basic science personnel, that higher education institutions should be open to science freely without becoming partisan, and that justice must be independent and free from all interventions. With existing policies, the political cadre can hold on as a burden on the country's back for a little longer through the sale of some remaining public assets. Our people, and even the government officials, must realize very clearly that the survival of the country takes precedence over the survival of the political cadre; the opposite can never be the case...