Eşitsiz ve Bileşik Gelişme Kapsamında Türkiye’nin Kapitalizme Entegre Oluş Süreci: “1945-1960”

Bu makale, klasik Uluslararası İlişkiler teorilerini özellikle içsellik ve dışsallık sorunu, tarih ve sosyoloji dışı olma kapsamında kritik bir biçimde ele almayı amaçlamaktadır. Bu bağlamda makale, eşitsiz ve bileşik gelişme yaklaşımını irdeleyecektir. Vaka olarak Türkiye’nin 1945’ler ve 60’lar arası dönemde kapitalizme entegre oluş süreci tartışılacaktır. Marksist bir yöntem ile ikincil kaynaklar üzerinden gidilerek tarihsel bir analiz yapılacaktır. Temelde; makale, tarihsel sosyolojik bir perspektiften uluslararası ilişkileri ele alırken onu tarihsel bağlamlara ve toplumların sosyal yapılarına yerleştirdiğini iddia etmektedir. Bu çerçevede; eşitsiz ve bileşik gelişme yaklaşımı, domestik ve uluslararası yapı arasındaki etkileşimlere odaklanarak tarihsel bağlamlara vurgu yapmaktadır. Bilhassa; bileşik gelişmeüretim modlarının modern ve geri kalmış formlarının karışımını ifade etmektedir – ulusal ve uluslararası alan arasındaki ayrımının sorunsallaştırılması bakımından önemli olmaktadır. Bu nedenle; makale, Türkiye’nin İkinci Dünya Savaşından sonra kapitalizme eklemlenme sürecinin devletler içi ve devletler arasında ki düzeylerde bileşik gelişmenin dinamiklerini (ekonomik, politik ve sosyolojik) önemli bir biçimde taşıdığını iddia etmektedir. Özellikle, Türkiye’nin savaştan sonra Batı’dan teknoloji transferi ve bu çerçevede sınıf ilişkileri bileşik gelişmenin önemli bir unsuru olarak ortaya çıkmaktadır

Turkey’s Integration to Capitalism Within Uneven and Combined Development Approach: “1945-1960”

This article aims to criticize classical international relations theories in regard to issues of internalityand externality, ahistoricism, and asociologism within the scope of historical sociology. In doing so, thearticle will address the uneven and combined development approach. An analysis of Turkey’s integrationto world capitalism between the 1940s and the 1960s will serve as a case study for this critique. The articlewill employ a Marxist method with a historical analysis. The article claims that historical sociologytakes up international relations by embedding it in societies’ historical contexts and structures. Withinthis framework, the uneven and combined development approach provides a significant dimension tounderstanding the social interactions between the domestic and the international structures withinhistorical processes. Particularly, combined development, which connotes the amalgam of modernand backward forms of production, helps us to overcome the separation between the national and theinternational. For this reason, the article claims that Turkey’s incorporation into capitalism after WWIIcontains significant dynamics of combined development (economic, political, and sociological) in bothintra – and inter-state levels. Specifically, Turkey’s technology transfer after the war in terms of newclass dynamics emerges as a significant mechanism of combined development.

PDF

___

Shaw, M. (1998). The Historical Sociology of the Future. Review of International Political Economy 5 (2), 321-326.
Roth, G. & Weber M. (1976). History and Sociology in the Work of Max Weber. The British Journal of Sociology 27 (3), 306-318.
Rosenberg, J. (2013). The ‘philosophical premises’ of uneven and combined development. Review of International Studies 39 (3), 569-597.
Rosenberg, J. (2010). Basic problems in the theory of uneven and combined development. Part II: unevenness and political multiplicity. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 23 (1), 165-189.
Rosenberg, J. (2006). Why is There No International Historical Sociology? European Journal of International Relations 12 (3), 307-340.
Rolf, S. (2015). Locating the State: Uneven and Combined Development, the States System and the Political. Theoretical Engagements in Geopolitical Economy 30A: 113-153. Accessed November 28, 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S0161-72302015000030A012.
Rioux, S. (2015). The Collapse of ‘The International Imagination’: A Critique of the Transhistorical Approach to Uneven and Combined Development. Theoretical Engagements in Geopolitical Economy 30A: 85-112. Accessed March 21, 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S0161-72302015000030A011.
Rioux, D. (2009). International Historical Sociology: Recovering Sociohistorical Causality, Rethinking Marxism. A Journal of Economics, Culture & Society 21 (4), 585-604.
Pijl, K. V. D. (2007). Capital and the State System: A Class Act. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 20 (4), 619-637.
Pijl, K. V. D. (2015). The Uneven and Combined Development of International Historical Sociology. Theoretical Engagements in Geopolitical Economy 30A: 45-83. Accessed November 28, 2015. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1108/S0161-72302015000030A010.
Nisancioglu, K. (2014). The Ottoman origins of capitalism: uneven and combined development and Eurocentrism. Review of International Studies 40, 325-347
Modelski, G. & Thompson W. R. (1999). The Long and the Short of Global Politics in the Twenty-first Century: An Evolution Approach. International Studies Review 1 (2), 109-140.
Matin, K. (2011). Redeeming the universal: Postcolonialism and the inner life of Euro-centrism. European Journal of International Relations, 1-25.
Matin, K. (2007). Uneven and Combined Development in. World History: The International Relations of State-formation in Premodern Iran. European Journal of International Relations 13 (3), 419-447.
Martin, G. P. (2007). Autonomous or Materialist Geopolitics. Cambridge Review of International Relations 20 (1), 551-563.
Linden, M. V. D. (2007). The ‘Law’ of Uneven and Combined Development: Some Underdeveloped Thoughts. Historical Materialism 15, 145-165.
Lawson, G. (2007). Historical Sociology in International Relations: Open Society, Research Programme and Vocation. International Politics 44, 343-368.
Lawson, G. & Hobson J. M. (2008). What is history in international relations? Millennium – Journal of International Studies 37 (2), 1-23.
Lawson, G. (2006). The Promise of Historical Sociology in International Relations. International Studies Review 8, 397–423.
Lacher, H. (2005). International transformation and the persistence of territoriality: toward a new political geography of capitalism. Review of International Political Economy 12 (1), 26-52.
Knafo, S. (2010). Critical approaches and the legacy of the agent/ structure debate in international relations. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 23 (3), 493-516.
Kiely, R. (June 2012. Spatial hierarchy and/or contemporary geopolitics: what can and can’t uneven and combined development explain? Cambridge Review of International Affairs 25 (2), 231-248.
Keohane, R. O. & Martin, L. L. (1995). The Promise of Institutionalist Theory. International Security 20 (1), 39-51.
Hobson, J., Lawson, G., & Rosenberg, J. (Wiley-Blackwell, 2010). Historical Sociology. The international Studies Encyclopedia): 1-40. Accessed November 28, 2015. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/28016/.
Hobson, J. M. (1998). The Historical Sociology of the State and the State of Historical Sociology in International Relations. Review of International Political Economy 5 (2), 284-320.
Hobson, J. M. (2011). What’s at Stake in the Neo-Trotskyist Debate? Towards a (non) Euro-centric Historical Sociology of Uneven and Combined Development. Millennium: Journal of International Studies 40 (1), 47-176
Halperin, S. (1998). Shadowboxing: Weberian Historical Sociology vs State-Centric International Relations Theory. Review of International Political Economy 5 (2), 327-339.
Goldthorpe, J. H. (1991). The Uses of History in Sociology: Reflections on Some Recent Tendencies. The British Journal of Sociology 42 (1), 211-230.
Glenn, J. (2012). Uneven and combined development: a fusion of Marxism and structural realism. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 25 (2), 75-95.
Gilpin, R. G. (1984). The Richness of the Tradition of Political Realism. International Organization 38 (2), 287-304.
Dufour, F. G. & Lapointe T. (2012). Assessing the Historical Turn in IR: An Anatomy of Second Wave Historical Sociology. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 25 (1), 97-121.
Evans, J. (2016). The uneven and combined development of class forces: migration as combined development. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2016.1170104.
Davidson, N. (2009). Putting the Nation Back into ‘the International’.” Cambridge Review of International Affairs 22 (1), 9-28.
Cox, R. (1981). Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory. Journal of International Studies 10 (2), 126-155.
Cooper, L. (2013). Can contingency be ‘internalized’ into the bounds of theory? Critical realism, the philosophy of internal relations and the solution of ‘uneven and combined development’. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 26 (3), 573-597.
Chernilo, D. (2010). Methodological nationalism and the domestic analogy: classical resources for their critique. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 23 (1), 87-106.
Chase-Dunn, C. & Grimes P. (1995). World-Systems Analysis. Annual Review of Sociology 21, 387-417.
Carvalho, B. de, Halvard L. & Hobson J. M. (2011). The Big Bangs of IR: The Myths That Your Teachers Still Tell You about 1648 and 1919. Millennium: Journal of International Studies 39 (3), 735-758.
Calhoun, C. (1998). Explanation in Historical Sociology: Narrative, General Theory, and Historically. Specific Theory. American Journal of Sociology 104 (3), 846-871.
Callinicos, A. (2007). Does capitalism need the state system? Cambridge Review of International Affairs 20 (4), 533-549.
Callinicos, A. (2009). How to solve the many-state problem: a reply to the debate. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 22 (1), 89-105.
Callinicos, A. (1982). Trotsky’s Theory of Permanent Revolution and Its Relevance to the Third World Today. International Socialism 2 (16), 1-13.
Callinicos, A. & Rosenberg, J. (2008). Uneven and combined development: the social-relational substratum of ‘the international’? An exchange of letters. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 21 (1), 77- 112.
Burnham, P. (1991). Neo-Gramscian Hegemony and the International Order. Capital & Class 15 (2), 73-92.
Brenner, R. (1977). The origins of capitalist development: a critique of neo-Smithian Marxism. New Left Review (104).
Bieler, A, & Morton, A. D. (2014). Uneven and Combined Development and Unequal Exchange: The Second Wind of Neoliberal ‘Free Trade’? Globalizations 11 (1), 35-45.
Bhambra, G. K. (2010). Historical sociology, international relations and connected histories. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 23 (1), 127-143.
Bhambra, G. K. (2011). Historical Sociology, Modernity, and Postcolonial Critique. The American Historical Review 116 (3), 653-662.
Apeldoorn, B. V. (2004). Theorizing the Transnational: A Historical Materialist Approach. Journal of International Relations and Development 7, 142-176.
Ashman, S. (2009). Capitalism, uneven and combined development and the Transhistoric. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 22 (1), 29-46.
Anievas, A. & Nisancioglu K. (2013). “What’s at Stake in the Transition Debate? Rethinking the Origins of Capitalism and the ‘Rise of the West’. Millennium: Journal of International Studies 42 (1), 78-102.
Allinson, J. C. & Anievas, A (2009). The uses and misuses of uneven and combined development: an anatomy of a concept. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 22 (1), 47-67.
Zürcher, E. J. (1995). Modernleşen Türkiye’nin Tarihi. In Y. S. Gönen (Trans.). Istanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
Wood, E. M. (2003). Empire of Capital. London and New York: Verso.
Wood, E. M. (1995). Democracy against Capitalism: Renewing Historical Materialism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wolf, E. R. (2010). Europe and the People without History. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press
Weber, M. (1978). Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press.
Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of International Politics. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Walker, R.B.J. (1993). Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wallerstein, I. (1995). Historical Capitalism with Capitalist Civilization. London: Verso
Wallerstein, I. (2006). World Systems Analysis. Durham: Duke University Press.
Wallerstein, I. (1974). The Modern World-System I: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. New York: Academic Press.
Yerasimos, S. (1975). Azgelişmişlik Sürecinde Türkiye 3 – I. Dünya Savaşından 1971’e. In B. Kuzucu (Trans.). Istanbul: Gözlem Yayınları.
Trotsky, L. (2008). History of the Russian Revolution, Translated by Max Eastman. Chicago, IL: Haymarket Books.
Trotsky, L. (2010). The Permanent Revolution & results and prospects. Seattle, WA: Red Letter Press.
Trotsky, L. (1957). The Third International after Lenin. In J. G. Wright (Trans.). New York: Pioneer Publishers
Trimberger, E. K. (2003). Tepeden Inmeci Devrimler: Japonya, Türkiye, Mısır, Peru. In F. Uslu (Trans.). Istanbul:Gelenek Yayıncılık.
Tilly, C. (1990). Coercion, Capital, and European States, AD 990-1990. Cambridge: Basil Blackwell.
Tilly, C. (1977). From Mobilization to Revolution. Michigan: University of Michigan.
Tezel, Y. S. (2002). Cumhuriyet Döneminin İktisadi Tarihi. İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları.
Teschke, B. (2008). The Ethics of Marxism. In C. Reus-Smith & D. Snidal (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Relations (pp. 163-187). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Teschke, B. (2003). The Myth of 1648. Class, Geopolitics, and the Making of. Modern International Relations. London and New York: Verso.
Şaylan, G. (1974). Türkiye’de Kapitalizm Bürokrasi ve Siyasal İdeoloji. Ankara:Sevinç Matbaası.
Smith, N. (2008). Uneven Development: Nature, Capital, and the Production of Space. Athens: The University of Georgia Press.
Skocpol, T. (1979). States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia and China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Skocpol, T. (1984). Sociology’s Historical Imagination. In T. Skocpol (Eds.), Vision and Method in Historical Sociology (pp. 1-21). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, D. (1991). The Rise of Historical Sociology. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
J. Shaw, S. & Shaw, E. K. (1977). History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey: Volume 2, Reform, Revolution, and Republic: The Rise of Modern Turkey 1808-1975. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shaw, M. (2000). Historical Sociology and Global Transformation. In R. Palan (Eds.), Global Political Economy: Contemporary theories (pp. 229-241). London and New York: Routledge.
Rosenberg, J. (1994). The Empire of Civil Society: A Critique of the Realist Theory of International Relations. New York: Verso.
Ruggie, J. G. (1986). Continuity and Transformation in the World Polity: Toward a Neorealist Synthesis. In R. O. Keohane (Eds.), Neorealism and Its Critiques (pp. 131-157). New York: Columbia University.
Pistor, M. (2005). Agency, structure and European integration. In E. Jones & A. Verdun (Eds.), The Political Economy of European Integration: Theory and Analysis (pp. 108-127). London and New York: Routledge.
Pijl, K. V. D. (2007). Nomads, Empires, States Modes of Foreign Relations and Political Economy. London: Pluto Press.
Pamuk Ş. Economic Growth and Institutional Change in Turkey Before 1980. In T. Çetin & F. Yilmaz, Understanding the Process of Economic Change in Turkey, (pp. 15-30). N/A: Nova Science Publishers.
Pamuk Ş. & Keyder, Ç. (2013). 1945 Çiftçiyi Topraklandırma Kanunu Üzerine Tezler. In K. Ünüvar (Eds.), Toplumsal Tarih Çalışmaları, (pp. 52-63). İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
Overbeek, H. (1993). Restructuring Hegemony in the Global Political Economy. London and New York: Routledge.
Oran, B. (2013). Türk Dış Politikası Cilt 1: 1919-1980, Kurtuluş Savaşından Bugüne Olgular, Belgeler, Yorumlar. Istanbul: Iletişim.
Novack, G. (2011). Understanding History. New York: Pathfinder Press.
Mills, C. W. (1959). The Sociological Imagination. New York: Oxford University Press.
Mann, M. (1988). States, War and Capitalism: Studies in Political Sociology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Mann, M. (1986). The Sources of Social Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mandel, Ernest (2001). “Uneven Development.” In Dictionary of Marxist Thought, edited by Tom Bottomore. Oxford and Malden: Blackwell Publishers.
Löwy, M. (1981). The Politics of Combined and Uneven Development the Theory of Permanent Revolution. London: Unwin Brothers Limited.
Lenin, V. (1999). Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. NSW: Resistance Books.
Lacher, H. (2002). Making sense of the international system: the promises and pitfalls of contemporary Marxist theories of international relations. In M. Rupert and H. Smith (Eds.), Historical Materialism and Globalization (pp. 147-164). London and New York: Routledge.
Lacher, H. (2006). Beyond Globalization: Capitalism, Territoriality and the International Relations of Modernity. Oxon: Routledge.
Knutsen, T. L. (2005). Uluslararası İlişkiler Teorisi Tarihi. In Mehmet Özay (Trans.). Istanbul: Açılım Kitap.
Keyder, C. (1988). Class and State in the Transformation of Modern Turkey. In State and Ideology in the Middle East and Pakistan. In F. Halliday and H. Alevi (Eds.). London: Macmillan Education LTD.
Keohane, R. O. & Nye J. S. (1977). Power & Interdependence: World Politics in Transition. Boston: Little, Brown.
Kelly, D. (2003). Karl Marx and Historical Sociology. In G. Delanty and E, F. Isin (Eds.), Handbook of Historical Sociology (pp. 11-25). London: Sage Publications.
Kasaba R. (1993). Populism and Democracy in Turkey, 1946-1961. In E. Goldberg, R. Kasaba & J.S. Migdal (Eds.), Rules and Rights in the Middle East, Democracy, Law and Society (pp. 43-68). Seattle, University of Washington Press.
Karpat, K. H. (2004). Studies on Turkish Politics and Society: Selected Articles and Essays. Social, Economic and Political Studies of the Middle East and Asia. Boston: Brill Leiden.
Gunce, E. (1967). Early planning Experiences in Turkey. In Planning in Turkey. In S. Ilkin (Eds.). Ankara: Faculty of Administrative Science, Publication no. 9.
Giddens, A. (1993). New Rules of Sociological Method. California: Stanford University Press.
Giddens, Antony (1985). The Nation-State and Violence. Oxford: Polity Press.
Gilpin, R. (1981). War and Change in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gerth, H. H. & Mills C. W. (1946). From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. New York: Oxford University Press.
İsmail, C. (1970). Türkiye’de Geri Kalmışlığın Tarihi. İstanbul: Cem Yayınevi.
İslamoğlu, Huricihan (2010). Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Devlet Ve Köylü. Istanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
Hülagü, Funda (2014). Marksizm ve Eleştirel Teoriler. In Evren Balta (Ed.), Küresel Siyasete Giriş (pp. 175- 202). Istanbul:İletişim Yayınları.
Holton, R. (2003). Max Weber and the Interpretative Tradition. In G. Delanty & E. F. Isin (Eds.), Handbook of Historical Sociology (pp. 27-38). London: Sage Publications.
Hobson, J. M (2000). The State and International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hobson, J. M. (2002). The two waves of Weberian historical sociology in International Relations. In S. Hobden & John M. (Eds.), Historical Sociology of International Relations (pp. 63-81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hobson, J. M. (2002). What’s at stake in ‘bringing historical sociology back into international relations’? Transcending ‘chronofetishism’ and ‘tempocentrism’ in international relations. In S. Hobden & J. M. Hobson (Eds.), Historical Sociology of International Relations (pp. 3-41) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hobson, J. M. (2005). Historical Sociology. In M. Griffiths (Eds.), Encyclopedia of International Relations and Global Politics (pp. 368-375). London and New York: Routledge.
Hobden, S. (1998). International Relations and Historical Sociology. London: Routledge.
Hintze, O. (1975). Military Organization and the Organization of the State. In F. Gilbert (Eds.), the Historical Essays of Otto Hintze (pp. 178-315). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hilferding, R. (1981). Finance Capital: A study of the latest phase of capitalist development. In M. Watnick and S. Gordon (Trans.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Harvey, D. (2003). The New Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Evans, P. B., Rueschemeyer D. & Skocpol T. (1985). Bringing the State Back in. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Elster, J. (1986). The theory of combined and uneven development: A critique. In J. Roemer (Eds.), Analytical Marxism (pp. 54-63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dougherty, J. E. & Pfaltzgraff R. L. (2001). Contending Theories of International Relations: A Comprehensive Survey. London: Longman.
Delanty, G. & Isin E. F (2003). Introduction: Reorienting Historical Sociology. In G. Delanty and E. F Isin (Eds.), Handbook of Historical Sociology (pp. 1-8). London: Sage Publications.
Carr, E. H. (1967). What Is History? New York: Random House.
Calhoun, C. (2003). Why Historical Sociology? In G. Delanty. & E. F. Isin. (Eds.), Handbook of Historical Sociology (pp. 383-393). London: Sage Publications.
Buzan, B. (1996). “The timeless wisdom of realism.” In S. Smith., K. Booth. & M. Zalewski (Eds.), International theory: positivism & beyond (pp. 47-65). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bukharin, N. (n.d.). Imperialism and World Economy. London: Martin Lawrence Limited.
Boratav, K. (2009). Türkiye İktisat Tarihi: 1908-2007. Ankara: İmge Kitabevi Yayınları.
Braunmühl, C. V. (1978). On the Analysis of the Bourgeois Nation State within the World Market Context. In J. Holloway and S. Picciotto (Eds.), State and capital: a Marxist debate (pp. 160-177). London: Edward Arnold Ltd.
Ashley, R.K. (1986). The Poverty of Neorealism. In R.O. Keohane (Eds.), Neo-realism and its Critics (pp. 255- 300). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Allinson, Jamie C. and Anievas Alexander (2010). Approaching ‘the International’: beyond Political Marxism. In Alexander Anievas (Ed.), Marxism and World Politics: Contesting Global Capitalism, (pp. 197-214). Oxon and New York: Routledge.
Abrams, P. (1982). Historical Sociology. New York: Cornell University Press