The claim that the state accumulates capital in cooperation with imperialist capital by using the state apparatus is a separate problem, and defining this as creating an industrial bourgeoisie with state resources is another problem.
First of all, let's say that the aim is capital accumulation, then instead of talking about using the state apparatus to create a class, we talk about the comprador bourgeoisie and landlords using state facilities for this purpose. Secondly, their aim of ensuring capital accumulation is not the same as the accumulation process, which is the condition of the classical development of capitalism, which Marx defines as primitive accumulation. In this relationship, capital essentially flows into imperialist capital and accumulates in it. The comprador bourgeoisie and landlords receive a certain share as subcontractors of exploitation based on collaboration with imperialism. (If we remember that they do not pay even 1 percent of the gold produced in gold mining, it becomes clear what kind of accumulation this is.) This share is neither sufficient to develop national capitalism, nor is there such a purpose, nor do the classes ruling the state represent the industrial bourgeoisie. On the contrary, they aim to prevent the development of the industrial (national) bourgeoisie, and they are associated with imperialism on this basis. Therefore, thirdly, the national/industrial bourgeoisie and the comprador-bureaucratic bourgeoisie are different classes. The second is not only opposed to the first, but also mediates its exploitation and prevention of its development. In this view, the comprador bourgeoisie and the landlords are given a mission that is contrary to their nature, this is a progressive role; but the mentioned ruling classes do not have a character suitable for this role. These classes are named as such precisely because they do not/cannot fulfill the mission attributed to them by the author, and due to their class character, they gain an opposing position to the national bourgeoisie. The author goes so far as to suggest that even the landlords, let alone the comprador bourgeoisie, aim to create an industrial bourgeoisie. However, their entire historical role is aimed at preventing and eliminating this.
Let us also remember what İbrahim said about creating a national bourgeoisie: “So, what is in question is not 'creating a national bourgeoisie with the help of the state'. What is in question is to allocate all state resources to the enrichment and expansion of the Kemalist bourgeoisie. State monopolies also served this purpose. By creating state monopolies the Kemalist bourgeoisie was largely eliminating competition in these areas, thus exploiting workers and peasants even more ruthlessly with high monopoly profits On the other hand, as Shnurov pointed out, monopoly-state capitalism combined entrepreneurship and government membership, giving the bourgeoisie a bureaucratic character, that is, giving birth to a bureaucratic bourgeoisie..." (İbrahim Kaypakkaya, Selected Articles, 208)
“…the government is constantly increasing the indirect taxes on the items sold by establishing many trade monopolies. A well-known journalist says 'the word monopoly means legalized robbery for the Turkish people'... The delivery price of kerosene to Istanbul is 4.5 kuruş (litre), the sales price is 16.5 kuruş; In other words, the price increases fourfold… The price of sugar increases by half. constituted three-fifths of state revenue in 1927-1928 (abc) Merchants and capitalists are not victimized by these taxes because these taxes are collected from the consumer by increasing sales prices. Laborers bear the full weight of these taxes…” (Ibid., p. 207) It is worth remembering that today, this form of taxation is done through indirect taxes, and the differences between cost and consumption prices are at similar rates, including diesel and gasoline prices, as well as electricity.
What the author said: "While SOEs were making production-profits for 80 million people (in reality, 80 million people produce for them. Bn.), this profit was transferred to the capital, a handful of companies, through privatizations." It is obvious that it is meaningless to attribute any value to SOEs that play the role of state monopoly in terms of the public's interests.
While the average surplus value rate in the public sector was 239 percent between 1950 and 1960, this average was 216 percent in the private sector. The total surplus value average of this period is 227 percent.
Between 1961 and 1980, the surplus value rate, which was 298 percent in the state sector, was 211 percent in the private sector. The total average for the period is 242 percent.
While the difference between the state and the private sector was 23 percent in favor of the state sector between 1950-60, it increased to 78 percent between 1961-80.
The average surplus value rate, which was 413 percent in the public sector between 1981 and 1990, was 358 percent in the private sector. The overall total average is 378 percent. The profit rate difference between the two sectors is 44 percent in favor of the state.
The average surplus value rate, which was 408 percent in the public sector between 1991-99, was 452 percent in the private sector. The overall average is 434 percent.
The average surplus value rate, which was 439 percent in the public sector between 2000-11, was 416 percent in the private sector. The overall average is 421 percent.
After quoting these data, Vasfi Nadir Tekin says: “The high rates of surplus value in the state sector show how wrong it is to see SOEs as a means of socialization. The purchase and sale of SOEs are carried out in accordance with the needs of the dominant powers of that period, depending on their relations with the imperialists…” (Vasfi Nadir Tekin, Zincirin Halkası, p. 135)
While SOEs are turning into a tool of extreme exploitation of the masses in the hands of the state, the author tries to portray them for the benefit of the people, deceiving the masses by making reality invisible and causing them to have false consciousness. The high rates of surplus value obtained through state monopolies show the level of exploitation of the people.
“Privatizations… are one of the methods used to transform the production, distribution and distribution relations in the market in favor of capital. This method aimed to significantly liquidate the state capitalism in Turkey (the weight of state subsidiaries in the market) and the bureaucrat bourgeoisie... On the one hand, this policy aimed to liquidate the bureaucrat bourgeoisie, the majority of which was composed of Kemalist cadres, and on the other hand, it aimed to put the potentials in the Turkish market at the service of capital..." (Esrin Balcı, Agriculture in Turkey in the Grip of Imperialist Monopolies, p. 85)
The main idea here is that the aim is to liquidate the existing bureaucratic bourgeoisie through privatizations and state participation. However, this is a wrong view as a result of a shallow understanding of the class issue and defining the bureaucrat bourgeoisie within a certain area.
First of all, although privatization is a method of rearranging relations according to the needs of capital, it is not correct to conclude that the relations before it or in the period when this policy was not implemented were not in favor of capital. Even though there are different cliques, those who implement both privatization and the policies before privatization are the same classes. Relations are always in favor of these classes as long as capital is dominant. It can only be said that different cliques of capital follow different policies due to the competition between them, which includes resorting to every method in order to reshape the relations in question according to their own interests and reorganize them in the ways required by international conditions. Which policies will be implemented in which period varies according to the needs and interests of the imperialist capital. Privatizations have been implemented almost all over the world as a requirement of neoliberal policy since 1980. Until that period, different economic policies were followed and all of them were determined according to the needs of imperialist capital. The Republic of Turkey has positioned itself in accordance with these policies followed in every period and has organized its functioning and relations accordingly. What is done with privatizations is no different from this. Undoubtedly, the implementation of these policies was also reflected in the contradictions between different cliques of imperialist capital, different imperialist states and their collaborators at the national level. In this respect, it is normal to experience conflicts between the comprador bourgeoisie and different cliques of landlords in order to dominate the state power. What is fundamental and decisive is the basic policies of the dominant imperialist powers-states specific to the period. There may be many different forms in the implementation of this policy, and even if they are parties to this policy, the competition between imperialist states and capital cliques to realize their different interests also affects/will affect this significantly. It is indisputable that the policies of the USA and the EU are decisive when it comes to the Republic of Turkey. It is also known that no clique of the comprador bourgeoisie and landlords has any fundamental opposition to the implementation of these policies. We can also see that the objections at secondary, formal and tactical levels are related to creating more space for them and taking roles/assigning them duties. Even on issues that are considered "national security" issues, the Turkish Republic cannot be completely decisive; the basic tendencies of imperialist organizations such as NATO concepts are adhered to, and their accepted objections ensure the localization of these policies.
The main problem of the proposition is that it explains the bureaucrat bourgeoisie with state capitalism and national bourgeoisie. Since privatizations started in a certain period (1980s) and reached large scales after 2000, it can be concluded that the bureaucrat bourgeoisie was dominant until the 1980s and even the 2000s. The comprador bourgeoisie, on the other hand, can only be effective through privatizations and can become more dominant as the bureaucratic bourgeoisie is liquidated. Thus, it gains the upper hand in the struggle to dominate state power. With this understanding, state capitalism-SOEs turn into the policies of the bureaucrat bourgeoisie, and neoliberalism-privatizations turn into the policies of the comprador bourgeoisie. Just as the bureaucratic bourgeoisie is not the national bourgeoisie, it would also be correct to define it as an independent class separate from the comprador bourgeoisie.
The bureaucratic bourgeoisie can be represented in different cliques of the ruling classes. Because what forms the character of these classes is their dependence on imperialism and the state. It is an integral characteristic of them that defines them. There is no special bureaucratic bourgeoisie separate from these classes. Therefore, it is wrong to define the bureaucrat bourgeoisie in opposition to these classes, and these classes in opposition to the bureaucrat bourgeoisie. It cannot be said that the bureaucratic bourgeoisie is homogeneous. It is inevitable that the segments that will benefit from state facilities will differ depending on the interests of the cliques that dominate the power. Therefore, different groups/cliques can undertake this function. Of course, they do not acquire this feature only in relation to power. Because these may show certain differences within themselves, they may come into conflict due to opposing interests, it is also possible for them to be fed by different economic policies and to acquire special positions and determine attitudes accordingly. Due to the state's dependence on imperialism, all of its economic-political-military policies are shaped and functionalized accordingly. The bureaucratic bourgeoisie's use of state facilities is not independent of policies related to imperialism, it is directly related to it. The bureaucratic bourgeoisie may rely on different imperialist powers, different cliques of these powers, etc.; But its essence is that it exists based on imperialism, with its support, and as a product of its policies. This class has almost no economic activity or political power independent of imperialism. Their seemingly independent activities cannot be contrary to the nature of this relationship. They do not have to have a direct relationship with imperialism; it is a feature of them that they are a part of the policies implemented and that they can produce themselves through the state through those relations.
The national bourgeoisie/industrial bourgeoisie has remained in the shadow of these classes from the beginning, has not developed enough to establish dominance, has been hindered and has not been able to play a decisive role in production relations. SOEs were functionalized on the basis of the interests of the comprador bureaucrat bourgeoisie and landlords who dominated the state throughout the entire process. We cannot define these in a relationship completely independent of imperialism. It is possible for the national bourgeoisie to gain a certain share in this relationship; But there is no doubt that this will be limited. Essentially, it can be said that the right wing of this class benefits from state facilities...
Throughout the book, the author, on the one hand, talks about the liquidation of small production by monopolies, and on the other hand, argues that small production should be protected as an efficient, superior mode of production. From the point of view of Marxism, it cannot be claimed that small production is superior in efficiency to large-scale capitalist production. It cannot be done; Because capitalist production has become the dominant mode of production, proving every time that it is superior to it in every field, and it has continued this quality even further in the imperialist stage. However, the author makes such a desperate effort to defend small production that he does not hesitate to include every explanation and data in favor of small production as his basis, regardless of why he says it. Unable to slow down, he considers the UN's declaration of 2011 as the world year of small family production as proof of his claim of efficiency, productivity and superiority in small production. (ibid, p. 249 ) Since the UN also declared so, then the accuracy of this claim is unquestionable! The author can now sleep well with the eternal dreams of small production!
In the book, it is explained that since the Ottoman Empire, the state has deepened the misery, destruction and impotence of small production with the agreements it made with imperialist states. The state, as an instrument of the comprador bourgeoisie and landlords, always serves their interests entirely. It has been proven by social experiences that with the reactionary nature of the bourgeoisie, the bourgeoisie has potentially broken away from the aim of realizing the bourgeois revolution, in other words national capitalism, and making it dominant, and that it can only survive by relying on imperialism and its affiliated capitalism, making even a bourgeois revolution impossible. In this respect, it is not possible for any state of this nature to take a radical, fundamental step towards national capitalism, and it is inherent in its nature to oppose every step taken in this direction. Because this class is extremely afraid of the proletarian revolution and does not have the opportunity or power to do anything to prevent it other than making an alliance with the feudal classes and relying on imperialism. For this reason, we know that the state will not pursue a national policy or goal such as developing small production in order to make national capitalism dominant, and will try to suppress every tendency/movement in this direction. The state's support for small production varies conjuncturally, depending on the periodic policy of imperialism and the division of labor, apart from a purpose against the possibility of revolution. Imperialism not only exploits small production through these classes, but also condemns this mode of production, which cannot compete with its own cheap products, to miserable-primitive conditions. It plunders cheap raw material resources to develop its own capitalist production. It is trying to compensate for the falling profit rates in its own country by taking advantage of cheap labor. It achieves all this through the state, with the privileges of the state that provide all kinds of opportunities. Imperialism thus makes national capitalism impossible with local collaborators in alliance with the ruling classes. Because an important feature of imperialism is to prevent production relations suitable for the development of productive forces from becoming dominant. In this respect, it is the biggest supporter of all backward production styles and relations. He tries to protect and maintain these for his own sovereignty and profits. He subjects them to himself and condemns them to a miserable life. It functions as a mill that constantly grinds the productive forces into an empty shell with endless forms of exploitation...
Imperialist-capitalist production has all kinds of negativities, inadequacies, etc. of small production. It is a fact that it is a result/response of the level reached by the counterproductive forces, and that all class societies, but especially societies based on private property, have their own inadequacies and negativities, including their own problems. If this fact is transformed into a justification for preaching the preference of largely self-sufficient small production as the most efficient and productive mode of production on the grounds that it is less harmful to society and nature as a result of comparison, it will remind these knights of small production of their limits, leaving all class societies based on private property, including small production, behind. It will be a necessary response of the societies that walk towards freedom by letting go.
FINISHED…
