On (Re)-Compradorization

by Fikret Başkaya*
July 21, 2006

A term used in the modern capitalist colonial period, comprador was imported from the late stage Latin into Portuguese. Its roots lie in the Latin word for “buying,” comparare, but it was used mainly for the Chinese and other Asian country natives who worked for the traders coming from the colonialist-imperialist metropols. The term Comprador Bourgeoisie is a concept of Marxist literature which has been used for the bourgeois class, appearing as a result of, and also being tied to, the colonialism in the “periphery”. The concepts such as comprador regime or comprador intellectuals etc. were also used later in the literature. The comprador bourgeoisie is a class which acts as a broker in the colonial and semi-colonial countries for the metropols. It is a class that gets wealthy as this trade develops; does not have any national characteristic or national concerns; is not “capitalistic”; which undertakes the go-between role in trade rather than participating in production; answers to the needs of the foreigners rather than its own nation; and is a so-called, “non national” class.

If colonialism had been eradicated after the second inter-imperialist war, as it is being asserted these days, the terms such as comprador to compradorize, or, comprador bourgeoisie should have dropped out of usage. Then why aren’t we using the actual term compradorization instead of re-compradorization? To answer this question one needs to briefly remember the period and its aftermath when the direct colonization version had been “liquidated”. Many countries of the periphery, which are today being called the “South” by the ideology production centers of the imperialist countries, were the “direct” colonies of the colonialist-imperialist metropols before and during the second inter-imperialist war. The rest were mostly of a semi-colonial status. After the second war, the colonial people either won or they were granted “political” independence. While in some places liberation from colonialism necessitated an armed struggle, in others the colonialists recognized their independence and hence secured a smooth transition. Two reasons made this possible: First, the ruling elites of the colonialists were thinking that with all its troubles, its expensive cost, and the attraction of hostility towards foreigners, direct version of colonialism had completed its life span. In reality, a type of a “soft” dependency, rather than direct colonialism, is more appropriate for capitalism’s logic. However, this reason was not sufficient by itself for the colonialists to withdraw and to recognize the independence of their colonies.

The colonialist-imperialist centers understood that colonialism had by then become internalized. To put it in another way, what had occurred was, what I call, “the situation of becoming colonialized”. Such a structure and a collection of relationships had emerged that unless a radical separation took place (such as economical, political, ideological, cultural, intellectual, ethical, etc.), having a “formal” change in only one dimension of dependency (i.e. the political independence) could not be sufficient to change the whole situation. Moreover, the semi-colonial countries were already politically independent and this new situation did not in any significant way alter their status. My words here should not be taken as belittling or being unfair to the hard and honorable struggle the colonial peoples have given to gain their independence. What I want to say is that political independence has not been “won” in the same manner everywhere, and, that taken by itself, political independence is not sufficient.

As a result of colonialism and semi-colonialism, the economic structure in the peripheral countries of the imperialist world system took shape completely in the direction of the needs of the center (the metropols). Neither the production nor the exports of these countries took place for the people living in those lands, but rather, they occurred for the needs of the “overseas”. Due to this, an unequal division of labor emerged and all the economic, social, political, cultural, ideological etc. structures developed in a deformed way. In order for liberation to have any real meaning, this warped, misshaped structure would have to be radically transformed. And this could only be possible with a revolution having a two-pronged capacity:

1. Turn the economy inward (which does not mean cutting all ties with foreigners)
2. “Democratize” the international relations and transform the unequal conditions.

The United Nations organization, established in 1945, had been planned and structured to defend the imperialist states and their interests, just like the League of Nations it had replaced. The “international law” founded by the United Nations Organization aimed at securing and defending the imperialist interests. Despite all the rhetoric, the mission of the organization was to sustain colonialism collectively under the conditions where the colonial people gained (or were granted) independence formally. Imperialism had already transformed into “collective imperialism” under the leadership of the USA after the Second Inter-Imperialist War. Now, each of the countries in the imperialist world system’s periphery had become”shared colony” of all the metropols (or at least, this was the intention) rather than being the colony of a single metropol country. And this situation was being legitimized and sustained by the United Nations organization and its so-called “international” agencies. This is the reason the period after the Second War was labeled as the “neo-colonial” era.

The intention to give real substance to liberation was announced in the 1955 Bandung Conference convened by the initiation of charismatic leaders from the Third World countries that had recently gained their independence. The “Wretched of the Earth,” for the first time, appeared on history’s stage to be the subject of history; to decide on their own fate; and to use their own natural and social resources for the benefit of their own people. The dynamism created by the Bandung Conference resulted in the formation of the “Non Aligned Movement” in 1961. From then on, there was another actor in the world apart from the US and the Soviet Union, and it was to be called “The Third World.” There was an expectation of developing and creating a national economies and societies under the condition of “mutual dependency” while staying clear of the two enemy blocs (imperialist and communist). However, it did not take long to realize that the concept of “mutual dependency” was nothing but a trap. Of course, the attitude of each of the countries within the Non-Aligned Movement was not consistent in confronting imperialism. Yet, they all began with the aim to create a national economic and social system. To make the economy “face inward” required an economic structure and workings commensurate with the national needs. To be able to do this:

1. The economy structured for the needs of the foreigners had to be transformed to an inwardly connected and integral formation (autocentré).
2. For this, the institutional and legal privileges enjoyed by foreigners had to end.
3. Consequently, the foreign corporations had to be nationalized.
4. An institutional structure and operations suitable to the economic management had to be created.
5. The international economic formation had to be transformed and re-structured as well as the “international law” which was biased towards the needs of the colonialist-imperialist forces.

If the actors listed above could not be realized, then independence would not be more than “a formality” and colonialism would have continued as a de facto neo-colonialism. As a matter of fact, neo-colonialism had three fundamental tools th
at were in effect:

1. Corporations currently referred to as multinationals.
2. Foreign trade or unequal trade relationships.
3. Foreign aid.

Foreign trade plays the very role of an exploitation tool by the manipulation of the exchange rates to the detriment of the Third World countries (The price of their imports always increase more than the price of their exports which results in more blood loss).

However, what is more important is the character of the foreign trade and specialization developed during colonial times. The whole issue can’t be resolved by simply fixing the exchange rates under conditions where production takes place for the enrichment and salvation of the ruling classes of the imperialist countries rather than feeding or sustaining the local people. This is why we insist on mentioning the necessity of an inward economy (autocentré).

The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), which was established as a result of pressure from the Third World countries, published in its 1964 (March-June) report that in the past 11 years the “developing countries” had lost 17% due to the imbalance in the exchange rates [1]. The multinational corporations operating in the Third World countries are a tool of the exploitation and looting there. Nationalizations began with Nasser’s Egypt in 1956. There 20% of all assets of the imperialist corporations were nationalized by 1972. Nationalization is required in order to prevent foreign exploitation and resource transfer and to create a national economy. The level of profitability for the US based multinationals dropped to 12.8% from 19.9% during the 1963 – 1967 period in the Latin American countries due to measures taken against the foreign corporations [2]. These numbers alone explain the attitude of the ruling sectors of the “First World” towards nationalizations. In these days of re-compradorization, however, it is not fashionable to nationalize the multinational corporations since they are now invited in at any cost, which is being considered a “requirement of the economy.” If we were to consider foreign debt and the creation of indebtedness to foreign resources, both of which are among some of the most important tools of neo-colonialism, we will see that the foreign debt is not only a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich, but it is a tool to hold the Third World regimes hostage.

From neo-colonialism to re-compradorization

The period when the newly liberated Third World countries began their efforts to nationalize foreign capital, stabilize the price of export goods and to democratize the international economic relations was the period when the imperialists were forced to give concessions. Maybe, for the first time since capitalist imperialism and colonialism appeared on the face of the earth, the balance of power tipped relatively towards the exploited classes and the oppressed people. Certainly, this was the result of anti-fascist struggles of the working classes in the center, socialism becoming the hope for the exploited classes and the oppressed people after the Soviet Revolution, and other struggles given by the oppressed people against colonialism. The masters of the world were forced to give concessions to the wretched of the earth as a result of the events of that time. For the wretched of the earth to utilize their own social and natural resources for themselves meant the end of the 500 year old dominion. For this reason, imperialist centers saw the demands coming from the Third World as a great threat and dangerous. As a result, imperialism’s hostility towards socialism and its hostility towards the Third World are one and the same. As a matter of fact, in the first half of the 1970’s, after the “oil shock” the proposal of “A New International Economic Order” from Algeria’s Bumedien was vehemently rejected. This constituted the breaking point for the national-populist project of the Third World regimes.

It is not possible for the Third World countries to “adapt” to the world capitalist system, which is by its very own nature hierarchical and thus polarizing, and be able to truly develop. It is also not possible for them to “catch up.” To put it in another way, it is impossible to “catch up” unless the totality of the relationships (economical, political, ideological, cultural etc.) between the imperialist centers and the periphery undergoes a radical transformation. Additionally, this is not even desirable. For this reason, neither the historical socialisms (Soviet Union, China) that broke away from the system, nor the Third World could have had a desire to catch up with the West. The aim was not to look like the West, but was to create something else. They needed to break away from imperialism, to submit the economy to politics, to create an inward directed (autocentré) economy and management, and to commit foreign affairs to the service of the internal affairs. (The historic “real socialism” experiments were successful in transforming the direction of the economies inward but failed because they could not make economies efficient and they could not create democracy and so later they tried to ape the West.)

At this stage the question is: How could the new elite rulers of the Third World, which had “won” its sovereignty either by armed struggle or with an agreement be under the illusion of being able to develop under the “mutual dependency” conditions without a radical breakaway from imperialism? Of course, this breakaway should not be understood as a complete inward withdrawal or autarchy. What cause lies at the root of their mistake? Does this issue engage solely the world of ideologies?

Of course, there is a part of this issue that engaged the world of ideologies. In the last analysis, the new rulers of the Third World had been well educated by the West. They were maimed with Eurocentric alienation. Despite the rhetoric, the Eurocentric alienation had made them estranged to their own “reality”. Even when they fought against colonialism or imperialism, they were “recreating” the same. This was one of the reasons they were delusional about developing or being able to catch the center in spite of imperialism. But there was another side of the issue that engaged the world of material/class interests. The new rulers had discovered ways to loot and become rich from public resources by utilizing their privileged position to supervise the state. So, by promoting themselves to the “internal” or the “native” factor of the exploitation, they betrayed the expectations of the masses. It seems that the door to re-compradorization was ajar from the very beginning. The meaning of “the right of nations to self determination” changed into “the right of the new elites to slaughter their own people.” They turned into bloody dictatorships in the name of nationalism and development, as corruption and misuse of authority became the norm not the exception. The “national development” issue continued to be pronounced and was valid, even if only at a rhetorical level, until the first part of the 1980’s when the “debt crises” exploded. The Debt Crises was a turning point for the Third World countries. Subsequently they surrendered the management of their economy to the imperialist centers through “stability programs” and/or “structural adjustment programs.” After the 1980’s, the term Third World was not being used any more, which was a sign that the Third World, which came to the world scene with the Bandung Conference and the Organization of the Non-Aligned Nations was leaving the stage as an actor. With the collapse of the Berlin Wall, the process of compradorization had now been completed.

Surely, the Third World countries’ preference for the direction of re-compradorization was based on the reasons mentioned above, but the role played by the collective imperialists (especially of the US) was not negligible. The charismatic l
eaders of the Third World who were starting to create a national economy, limiting the exploitation, nationalizing foreign corporations for these ends, attempting land reforms and raising demands towards “balancing” the international economic relationships were either exterminated through coups, assassinations, conspiracies or political murders or they were neutralized. Musaddik, who nationalized the oil in Iran, was driven from power by a CIA staged coup and was jailed. Jacobo Arbenz, who effected a land reform in 1954, and by doing so created a bad example in Guatemala, was pacified with a coup also. Cemal Abdul Nasser, who nationalized the Suez Canal and became the symbol of Arab nationalism, was neutralized with the 6 Day War of 1967, which was planned in Washington in 1965. Ahmed Sukarno, the president of Indonesia, one of the most important personalities of the Bandung Conference and the Non-Aligned Nations was toppled with an anti-communist coup in 1965. Salvador Allende, the Marxist head of Chile who nationalized the copper mines, was killed by yet another CIA coup in 1973 and general Augusto Pinochet, a puppet of imperialism replaced him. These are only a few of the leaders of the Third World who threatened the interests of imperialism and became the “bad examples,” and thus were neutralized on three continents that are rife with other such appalling events. The biggest concern of the imperialist centers was to prevent, at all costs, the formation of an effective center by the radical movements of the Third World and to prevent a possible unity and solidarity among them. The murder of Patrice Lumumba (1961) in Congo who had formed the “national liberation movement” there; the disappearance of Moroccan Mehdi Ben Barka (1965) after his kidnapping in Paris by the imperialist intelligence organizations. The secrets behind his death are still unknown and his assailants have never been caught; and the murder of Che Guevara in Bolivia (1967) were intended to stomp out the anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist radical movements in the Third World.

Compradorization and the “development model”

The current development model in the newly liberated countries after the second imperialist war or the Third World countries which were already politically independent was a dependent and an externalizing model by its very “nature”. Foremost, the international division of labor and “specialization” that had formed during the colonial and semi-colonial period was untouched. This meant that the direction of the economy was outwardly. A “development” model that targets catching up with the West or to imitate it, translates into a double dependency. Not only did these countries have had to sell their products to the imperialists, which meant the imperialists controlled the prices, but they also had to import patents, tools, intermediate goods, technological knowledge etc. from them to be able to produce goods suitable to the western model. This economic growth was based on buying dear and selling cheap. To put it differently, this was a model of impoverishment. The Import/Export price ratio of goods was developing negatively for Third World countries and the loss of life’s blood was worsening. The growth of exports was causing more poverty and more environmental degradation for them. Instead of supplying necessities for the masses, production and the imports befitted only the privileged elite who considered living like the westerners to be their only skill and goal in life. Yet, since the produced industrial goods were sold in the internal markets the foreign currency required to finance the “economic growth” was not being generated. This created an environment of indebtedness where it was in the interest of the imperialist countries to try their best to lend to the Third World countries. Lending is a very profitable business for the lender, but it is also a tool to take the borrower hostage. From the point of view of imperialism, the latter is of critical importance. The Third World debt’s rapid growth and the steady increase in oil prices brought conflicting results; the situation was only growing worse.

The increase in the oil prices: Boomerang effect or the path to compradorization.

The imperialist countries were obtaining the oil very cheaply just like any other resource they were getting from the Third World. In the beginning, forming a petroleum exporting organization, OPEC, and to form a cartel in this area seemed like a positive move. This would prevent the sale of oil at bargain basement prices. But the operations meant different things to different parties. First, this was a very profitable operation for the largest oil monopolies called “the seven sisters”. Second, the oil exporting countries had increased their export revenues. But this had resulted in a total financial shock in the oil importing countries. The oil importing countries had already undertaken a series of “pretentious” investment projects (especially on infrastructure) with the encouragement from the imperialists and now, with the rising oil prices, they found themselves in a very tight spot. This caused them to borrow heavily from the multinational, private commercial banks as their debt grew astronomically. After a certain point, when the debt could not be paid back (the debt crises), the IMF and the World Bank could now force the “stabilization” or the “structural adjustment programs.” Three results were expected from the structural adjustment programs:

1. To make sure the debts get paid on time.
2. To completely open the Third World economies to the exploitation of the multinational corporations.
3. To distance those countries from any goal of developing, i.e. to re-compradorize them.

The Structural Adjustment Programs were complete re-compradorization programs resulting in the total elimination of the effects and importance of the Third World during 1955-1975. It is obvious that the “structural adjustment programs” have not been forced on to the heavily indebted Third World countries by pointing a gun at them. As required by their class interests, the privileged elites of the Third World countries agreed on the re-compradorization of “their” countries in exchange for the shares they received from the exploitation occurring on a global scale. Today, except for few exceptions, the re-comprodarized regimes are in “power” in the Third World. Even though these regimes may still use a nationalistic language or mention “national interests” etc., it is more accurate to say that they are actually guarding imperialism in their countries.

The national borders have become a prison wall for the laboring masses. The ruling elites are squandering every resource of the country in favor of the “new masters”, the multinationals or transnational corporations, and are receiving their share of the loot in return. They globalize. They present privatization as if it was a success. In a way, the Third World is now being relegated to its position in the days of direct colonialism. As a result, having no national/popular concerns and having been alienated from their own people and their problems, these regimes have assumed the tasks of the colonial rulers in the direct colonial times. Even if ideological slavery prevents the grasp of this situation, it is impossible to sustain the conditions in its current state. Therefore, the “wretched of the earth” can not bear this barbaric exploitation, looting and theft that know no boundaries or ethics at all. Many signs of this are appearing and struggles continue everywhere.

Capitalist imperialism has reduced the world to one market and has globalized it. However, it has also globalized the problems of humanity. To put it in another way, it is no longer possible for any of the Third World countries to achieve liberation alone. Of course, this has always been true in a general sense, but now the situation seems much clearer. These days, a new
Bandung is not possible, nor needed, for the people living in the “periphery” called the South. However, unlike its predecessors (the First, Second, Third and the Fourth), in order to make possible a new, non-Eurocentric real democratic International, the “wretched of the earth” must first be unified. A world order, where 80% of the world’s population is forced to live on only 14% of the world’s resources and where the environmental destruction continues at full speed, is not possible to sustain. From now on, both their own fate and that of humanity and civilization are in the hands of the “wretched of the earth.”

As a result, the future of humanity depends on the answers to this challenge.

* President of Turkey and Middle-East Forum Fondation [Free University] – Ankara