January 11, 2006

We are presenting an interview by one of our authors, Mehmet Bayram, conducted with Professor Fikret Başkaya following Dr. Başkaya’s article “Imperialism” published in Özgür Üniversite in December 2005.

Mehmet Bayram- Professor Başkaya, you are making the following observation in your most recent article, “Imperialism”:

“Today, there is nearly not a single Third World country that is a direct colony of the colonial imperialist states. Yet, they are subject to ‘foreign’ exploitation just like the times when they were under direct colony…”

Starting with your assessment above, we’d like to ask you few questions on the concept of imperialsim and its current meaning.

Mehmet Bayram- If we were to look at imperialism, especially in the context of its current relationships, definition of “neo-colonialism” is being critisized even from some of those who come from the Marxist tradition. Judging the economical growth level, there are claims that some of the old colonial countries could be “liberated” from imperialist relationships. Some examples of these countries are those defined as the “Pacific Tigers.” Another example could be India with its developed economy. Since these countries are no longer under the imperialist occupation, with their developed economies, could these countries be defined as “independent” ?

Fikret Başkaya- Neo-colonialism was a concept used for those countries that gained their political independence after the second interimperialist war but who were still under the influence of imperialism. Put in a different way, this term was being used to define imperialism without direct colonialism. Therefore, as I have repeatedly insisted, the “state of being colonialized” is a multidimensional social-historical condition. It is a dialectical totality of different determinants… If the political independence you gain can not go beyond just an issue of appearance; if no important change in the aggregate of unequal relationships, or other relationships of domination, exploitation, dependance and conditioning occur, it is not possible for it to have much significance. Therefore, the relationship of dependence and domination are at the same time economical, social and ideological. If these do not go through a complete transformation, a political independence that is only in form has much less significance than generally thought.

As long as the direction of the economy points towards the imperialist centers, the economy (the structure of production) will continue being structured and work for foreign needs. What was meant by such independence was not so much a breakaway but rather to imitate the imperialist centers more rapidly and more comprehensively. What was called development had replaced colonialism. In order not to call it neo-colonialism, they called it development…

India and similar countries are the true periphery of the era called the globalization. But, because some industrial or some service sectors have developed there, it does not mean their position in the hierarchical world system has changed. It is not a wonder they call these the “emerging markets”. What this means is that, it is the best condition of exploitation for imperialism, so it means that these are the economies where the opportunities of gaining value are the greatest.

For example, in the last few years, just for the cellular phones, Turkey transferred 30 billion US dollars worth of value to foreigners… Well, this is what they mean by “emerging markets.” Of course, neither India nor others are the countries they were 100, 50 or even 25 years ago. Nevertheless, this still does not mean that their situation in the world system has undergone a radical transformation. On the contrary, the exploitation has deepened in post 1980 years. What is important is where you stand, your position in the world hierarchical system, not what you produce or sell. The only liberation for the countries in question is to breakaway from the imperialist system. When there is lack of a substantial exodus, the things will continue to get worse.

However, certainly, the breakaway does not mean turning completely inward. It is meaningful to shape the foreign relationships based on the direction of internal needs. However, nowadays it is the opposite. Of course, what I am saying is not to minimize the importance of political independence but when other dependencies stay the way they are, or even grow deeper, it would be deceitful to talk of independence…

MB- If we go back to the views I expressed above, that is, if we believe that economic development is emancipatory, then we would see that these ideas reflect exactly the same views imposed upon us by the IMF. Put another way, if we can succeed in capitalist development, this would, at the same time, liberate us from imperialism as well. Then, if India could do it, we should be able to suggest the same model to African nations trying to get out from under imperialism. That is, they should work hard just like India to liberate themselves from imperialism.

Fikret Başkaya- Capitalism does not produce development by and of itself. However, people make a fundamental mistake by classifying the growth of capital as development. Therefore, there is a confusion of terminology and thinking. Furthermore, the concept of development is not the same concept used back in the 1980’s. Those times are now history. The preferred concept these days is ‘adjustment.’ Well, whose adjustment to whom? What is meant is to adjust to the movement of the capital. Moreover, who will adjust to whom is determined by the IMF, the World Bank, the WTO, and OECD etc. As you mentioned, the exploitation has reached unprecedented levels in the last 25 years but nobody talks about imperialism.

They cannot say “imperialism”, so they use “globalization.” Prior to 1980, capitalism was in defense. Struggles were taking place in three areas:
1. In the center, where the working class was not in defense and were not defeated.
2. In the periphery [third world] where they had not re-compradorized. They could still exert pressure on imperialist centers with some demands.
3. The Soviet system was still an important focal point.

All these could put important pressures on the capital.

After 1980, but especially after 1990 the balance of power completely changed in favor of capital. Imperialist exploitation and looting grew to levels never seen before. Nobody is using the concepts of imperialism or neo-colonialism any more. If you ignore a situation, a factual event, does that thing vanish into thin air? Then the question actualy concerns the ideological balance of power. Today, the exploitation, plunder and looting experienced by the Third World is far more extensive and deeper than the times known as neo-colonialism. The reason is that the countries (regimes) in question have re-compradorized. The state apparatus has become completely alienated to those societies now.

MB- But, there could be instances where the capitalists of India (or any other country) having secured a certain amount of accumulation could start challenging the metropolitan countries and start asserting their own class interests against the imperialists in some areas. For example, India sometimes votes against the wishes of the USA, etc.

Fikret Başkaya- But of course India is a large country. She does have the potential to challenge imperialism. The same goes for other ‘large periphery countries” as well. But, the most important thing is whether this potential will be utilized or not. It is possible in theory for India, China, Russia and Brazil to get together and form a block. In addition, if this occurs, it means USA’s nose will be rubbed in dirt. However, what is important is to determine which balance
of power allows the possibility of this happening. The possibility of such a thing occurring is quite low until the impact and control of the poor majority over the political power grows. Nevertheless, one should not think that the wretched of the earth would accept the current situation for long. The wave will reverse. It is inevitable but to have the attack-counter attack dialectics. But the method or modality of this will be concretized in the practice of the struggle. There is a need for a new International. This can not be like the previous ones, and it will not be. But in order for this to be on the agenda and start to be discussed, the struggle needs to come to a certain level, that is, it needs to “mature.”

MB- Today, even the resources of the imperialist countries like Britain or Canada is being exploited by each other. Since we cannot classify these as, “being subject to imperialism”, how do we define countries like India where a similar exploitation occurs?

Fikret Başkaya- The world capitalist system is hierarchical and cannot exist without creating a hierarchy.

In every era, there exists a hegemonic power at the top of the pyramid and other imperialists just follow that power. There is a situation, which is called “collective imperialism” by Samir Amin [after 1945] these days. Brazil, China, India etc. are not in this block. On the contrary, they are all subject to the exploitation of this block.

MB- Are the old criteria like “exporting capital” still the measure of whether the relationship between two countries is an imperialist one? Today, countries like Turkey also export capital and open up manufacturing plants elsewhere. Do these now make Turkey an imperialist?

Fikret Başkaya- Exporting capital overseas does not concern Turkey, but is an issue for the state of capital. Capital does not possess an identity card or a passport. It is a fact that capital has integrated over the world, but this does not nullify the fact that the positions of the imperialist centers are still the determinants here.

Financial monopoly is there, the monopoly of access to natural wealth is there also, and the monopoly of technology, likewise, is there too… etc. Therefore, we should not lose sight of what we are discussing here. Recently, the writings of Negri-Hartd have, especially in the left wings, have confused many people.

What they are saying is that Imperialism is outdated. However, imperialism has never reached a level of destructiveness in any era as the level it has reached today. Imperialism does not only mean export of capital. First, imperialism is something that is within capitalism. Second, capitalism cannot be without imperialism and imperialism cannot be without wars. And hegemony cannot be without an enemy. Imperialism is not only an economic but is also a political, ideological and military category. It is not correct to look at only one component of all the units that compromise the totality and come to a decision about the totality. It is true that Turkey does have investments abroad but it can only attempt to do this as an expension of, as a contractor of the imperialist capital. Turkey has been the most loyal satellite of the US since 1950. That is, it is a satellite that guards the borders of the collective imperialism.

MB- Some Marxists defend that the definition of “neo-colonialism” is not in the Marxist terminology. For those, even the terms like “national bourgeoisie/comprador bourgeoisie” were invented long after Lenin by the Soviets to pull some countries to their field of influence. Your thoughts on these?

Fikret Başkaya- What is called the Marxist terminology is not a sacred book! Just because something was not there before, does this mean it should never be there? This is an approach associated with freezing, making a fetish out of Marxism, and has nothing to do with Marxism. How can we express a new phenomenon such as neo-colonialism? Regarding the national bourgeoisie, it was not possible to have something called the national bourgeoisie in the 20th century any more.

Therefore, at a point reached by capitalism and imperialism, at the level they reached, the reason of existence of the national bourgeoisie no longer exists at all. Of course, it is not a secret that such concepts put forth by the Soviets, like the “development through non-capitalist path” etc. are their creations due to political concerns, but neo-colonialism was for sure an appropriate and a needed concept.

MB- But you do not use the term, “neo-colonialism” either. Do you do this on purpose, or because you talk about the subject matter rather than the term itself?

Fikret Başkaya- I no longer use this term as much as I used to in the past. I think there is a new situation now, the re-compradorization that has surpassed neo-colonialism. This new term, re-compradorization, describes the current situation much better. By using this, we are implying that we are now in a new stage compared to the old 1945-1980 era. We should use and insist on using the term neo-compradorization to expose the current situation and raise this to consciousness in the people..

MB- You are using the concept of globalization as a stage. However, for some thinkers, the word “globalization” is used by those liberals who just cannot pronounce the word “imperialism”. They also use it to conceal the exploitative relationship of the word imperialism and to emphasize the “expansion” dimension of the relationship. How then should we see globalization?

Fikret Başkaya- I am saying with emphasis that they use the word globalization in order to not to say imperialism.

But for the ease of use in expressionow n, sometimes I do use the concept of neo-colonialism. Otherwise, you will end up explaining everything you say like, “what I understand from this is…” Those who read my writings carefully understand, or should understand what my intension is…

The bourgeois ideologs, politicians, bunch of academicians, the media have coined the post 1980 situation of Capitalism-Imperialism as globalization and the concept is being commonly used today. This way, it is implied that capitalism has changed and now imperialism is only an unattractive memory from the past. As you know, not to call something by its proper name is a way to lie. An obvious lie is being said. However, as a contradiction, the bigger the lie, more people believe in it. But if something needs t be said, there is no harm in defining globalization as a sub era of capitalism. This way, the originality of the contemporary would be expressed while showing that capitalism has stayed as capitalism. Concepts are important. The same concepts can be used as tools for slavery or for emancipation. The ideological struggle has gained a vital importance in the 21st century. We need to try harder to bring all that is happening to consciousness.