Globalisation: Uneven and Combined Capitalist Development

Is it holding back?

One of the issues that needs to be carefully examined today is the view that imperialism, or globalisation as it is now called, is holding back underdeveloped countries and regions. Does the dominant position of capitalist countries, which are much more economically developed and powerful, really have a restraining and retarding effect on the economic development of backward countries? In fact, it would be completely wrong to attempt to answer these and similar questions with one-sided and mechanistic generalizations that ignore the differences in the historical development of countries and the diversity that derives from it.

In its historical progress, capitalism has produced a variety of results in different parts of the world and in different geographical regions, which may sometimes appear quite different from each other. Not only in the context of the underdeveloped countries, but also in the world economy in general, this mode of production can develop some areas of the economy and inhibit the development of others. But such effects are, in the final analysis, relative rather than absolute. For capitalism does not only produce inequality; it is also characterized by a combined development.

Capitalism, as a factor that dissolves old structures in all areas it enters, triggers complex and uneven processes of capitalist development in which old and new forms intertwine. In fact, in various regions and countries where this mode of production was not previously dominant, the relations of production have gradually dissolved in favour of capitalism. The overturning of old structures under the influence of capitalist relations is a process that changes the traditional living conditions of human communities in the form of shock waves. In the case of Turkey, there is no need to go far, such a process took place from the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire to the founding of the Turkish Republic and even more recently.

For a long time in Turkey, the tradition of imece, an extension of the Asiatic village commune life of the past, and the habits of life that began to change as a result of wave after wave of migration from the village to the city, existed almost side by side. The fact that meaningful leaps in capitalism began to take place in this country only in the 60s, with a considerable delay, gave the capitalization process an even more problematic and painful character. So much so that despite the underlying capitalist development process in this country, the debate on whether Turkey was a capitalist or a semi-capitalist/semi-feudal country dominated the left throughout the 60s and 70s. Even if this may seem a bit ridiculous today, it is a reality that it was only after the ‘80s that capitalist development in Turkey took flesh and bones with its striking images. The era of Özal which is famous for society getting out of joint, is characterized as a period in which capitalism made an enormous leap in this land and buried many old debates in the pages of history.

The dismantling of old economic structures and habits and the construction of the new have taken place on the basis of the unplanned and anarchic nature of capitalist progress throughout the world. Such historical processes can only proceed at the cost of much suffering for the generations that experience them. The processes of introducing capitalist relations in the economically backward parts of the world have created much more unequal and disproportionate relations, and the suffering has been much greater, than in Western countries that have experienced this development in its natural evolution. This is why capitalism in regions and countries with a rather stagnant or Asiatic historical past has manifested itself as a distorted development process compared to the Western societies from which it emerged.

As in other countries, such a process was also experienced in Tsarist Russia and was the subject of many debates in the revolutionary movement. For example, Narodniks argued that capitalist development was impossible in Russia, which had a different historical background and different relations of production from European countries. According to them, the domestic market in Russia was shrinking due to the destruction of the peasantry. On the other hand, they argued that surplus-value could not be realized without a foreign market and that a country like Russia, which had entered the path of capitalist development late, could not benefit from the possibility of a foreign market anyway.

This approach was contrary to the Marxist conception of capitalist development and was criticized by Lenin. For capitalist development was possible in Russia, even on the basis of a process fraught with serious contradictions and with the impetus of foreign capital. The characteristics of capitalist development in countries like Russia were also extensively discussed by Trotsky. While the relations that Tsarist Russia developed with foreign countries seemed to strengthen the hand of this political regime, they were inevitably encouraging capitalist development at the same time.

Failure to grasp the contradictory features exhibited by processes of introducing capitalist relations in a dialectical manner, and the one-sided exaggeration or absolutizing of this or that tendency, leads to shifts in the left movement and the invention of theories incompatible with Marxism. The distortions of Trotsky’s sound assessments by various Trotskyist circles over time are deviations of the same scope. For example, the assertion that imperialism necessarily holds back underdeveloped countries has been widely accepted in some Trotskyist circles.

However, Trotsky’s own exposition is a response to such claims. Trotsky points out that capitalist development has proceeded in the direction of relatively equalizing the economic and cultural levels of various countries. “Without this main process,” he says, “it would be impossible to conceive of the relative leveling out, first, of Europe with Great Britain, and then, of America with Europe; the industrialization of the colonies, the diminishing gap between India and Great Britain...”[1] These and similar passages are clear proof that the views that economic progress cannot be achieved under capitalism in countries like, say, India, and that industrialization cannot take place in the former colonies, are incompatible with Trotsky’s analyses.

Of course, the economic developments referred to here never take place in a straight line; various contradictions and distortions try to find their way through the reproduced relations of inequality. But contradiction and distortion are already inherent in capitalism. Indeed, Trotsky also draws attention to this important point. He points out that while capitalism brings countries closer to each other economically and relatively equalizes their stages of development, it does so by means of methods that are entirely peculiar to itself, that is, anarchic. So much so that it constantly undermines its own work, pitting one country or branch of industry against another, developing some parts of the world economy while hindering the development of others and throwing them backwards.

It is true that in the past, as long as colonial and semi-colonial countries were viewed by colonial and semi-colonial countries as a source of cheap raw materials, no meaningful industrialization breakthrough was recorded in these countries. As a result of this situation, the colonialist countries were able to obtain cheap raw materials, cheap energy, cheap labour and enjoyed the benefits of uneven development to the fullest. But this is not the only reality. Unlike the colonialist ways, imperialist capitalism tends to gradually absorb into its capitalist functioning even those countries and regions which were not once the scene of capitalist development. Compared to the early industrialised countries, this kind of passage to capitalism gives the economic and social process a highly contradictory and painful character, but nevertheless functions to advance the productive forces.

Views that claim that imperialism will lead to economic stagnation and regression in former colonial and semi-colonial countries without carefully analysing the effects of capitalist expansionism that has evolved from colonialism to imperialism should be met with caution. First of all, it is necessary to consider the basis on which the analyses of economic progress or regression are made. The assumption that there would have been a more rapid development of productive forces in these countries if it were not for the dissolving effect of imperialist capitalism on the old structures is an absurd and unfounded approach which is incompatible with the laws of historical development.

For the imperialist countries to hold the regions that fall within their sphere of influence in a permanently economically backward position would be a factor that in the long run would come back to bite them and lead to stagnation. The imperialist powers need to open up previously untouched areas of the whole world to capitalism, to advance the process of industrialisation there at one pace or another, and in time to incorporate all regions more thoroughly into the workings of capitalism. To what extent and at what pace this need can be fulfilled, or how economic imperatives, due to a thousand and one contradictions of life, can lead to inequalities, do not in the final analysis change the rule. Indeed, as a result of capitalism drawing various nations into its network of relations, many large and small countries, once dominated by pre-capitalist modes of production, have become capitalist. Thus, the capitalist production process has gradually acquired a truly international or, in the current parlance, global character.

Deterioration in income distribution

Another claim that needs to be taken with caution is that income distribution will deteriorate in countries that fall within the imperialist sphere of expansion. Behind such approaches, which seem logical at first glance, lies a distorted understanding of anti-imperialism that seeks to portray the source of capitalist evil as a mere external threat. However, regardless of the country in question, capitalist functioning itself tends over time to distort the distribution of income to the detriment of the working class and toiling masses. In short, this evil is not a phenomenon limited to imperialism’s appropriation of underdeveloped countries.

With the globalisation of capitalism and especially with the neoliberal policies pursued after 1980, the gap between rich and poor has widened enormously across the world. For example, in 1960, the average income of the richest 20 percent of the world population was about 30 times that of the poorest 20 percent. In the 2000s, however, this ratio has exceeded 80 times. It is also clear that in addition to inequality between capitalist countries, inequality within these countries is also being reproduced at an increasing rate. The social gaps created by globalising capitalism around the world have reached unbelievable proportions. While the total wealth of the richest 225 people in the world exceeds 1 trillion dollars, this figure is said to be equal to the total annual income of the world’s poorest 2.5 billion people. Another striking example is that the total value of production in the 48 poorest countries is less than the total wealth of the three richest persons in the world.

In short, this is what capitalism is, with or without the adjective global. On the one hand, it may bring about an improvement in the income and living standards of the productive masses compared to the past, but on the other hand, it increases the inequality between different income groups in all capitalist countries. The masses, even in the richest capitalist countries, cannot escape the relative impoverishment brought about by capitalism. Even when there is an apparent improvement in their incomes, the ability of workers to meet their growing needs in relation to the development of the productive forces regresses. To argue that globalisation is a phenomenon that only distorts the distribution of income in poor countries is compatible neither with reality nor with Marxism. It is one of the most important findings of Marxism that capitalist development generally deepens the gap between the world of wealth and the world of poverty.

In order to avoid some misunderstandings about the problem under discussion, let us draw attention to an important point. Comparisons of the impact of capitalism on income distribution in underdeveloped countries should be made in the context of the social conditions that have been shaped under capitalism itself, and not in comparison with the period of dissolution of the old society. This is because an important feature of the pre-capitalist period in traditional agrarian countries was that vast masses shared conditions of relative equality in poverty. With capitalist development, this is replaced by a new class structure. The village communities that existed in the old society dissolve and the relations of production of class society are reproduced on the basis of capitalism.

Due to capitalist development, the old structure of society is disrupted, while a significant part of the small property owners of the past become proletarianized. While the general level of production and income of the nation increases as a result of industrialization, the distribution of this income under capitalism is of course based on inequality. However, this is an inevitable consequence of the capitalist process in general, and not only of the process of becoming capitalist specific to the underdeveloped countries under the domination of imperialism. In short, all views that imply that without the intervention of imperialism there would have been a more equitable industrialization and becoming capitalist at the national level that would have prevented the deterioration in the distribution of income are false. Such views serve bourgeois nationalism in the final analysis.

The impasse of petty-bourgeois criticism

Lenin, one of the main milestones in the transmission of Marxism to future generations without distortion, drew attention to the progressive historical mission of capitalism compared to the past. Production for a growing national and international market obviously plays an economically developmental role. Trade relations both within and between countries intensify over time. As a result of technical progress and the spread of large-scale production, the old population structure and class composition change rapidly. Capitalist development destroys the outdated traditions of patriarchal life and at the same time creates the modern working class. With the diversification of needs and the modernization of lifestyles, the production process and those involved in production are socialized. This change under capitalism is in fact a historical progression that moves human life from the past towards the classless society of the future. As Lenin noted, the progressive historical role of capitalism can be summarized in two short propositions: “increase in the productive forces of social labour and the socialisation of that labour”.[2]

Marxism has shed light on the contradictory nature of capitalism, as it has on many other questions that need clarification. The capitalist mode of production is a historical instrument for the development of the material forces of production and the creation of a viable world market, but it can only fulfil this task in the midst of various contradictions. For example, the economic progress achieved by capitalism in comparison to previous modes of production and the reactionary tendency in political life created by imperialist capitalism can very well go hand in hand. To think that these two ideas contradict each other is to fail to understand capitalism. Lenin has generally clarified this issue. Recognizing the importance of the progressive role played by capitalism economically does not contradict being fully aware of the negative and dark aspects of capitalism.

The progressive historical role of capitalism has never eliminated, nor can it eliminate, the deep and multifaceted social contradictions inherent in the structure of this economic regime and that reveal its historically temporary character. Another important aspect of the problem is the objections raised by petty-bourgeois tendencies, which fail to grasp deep contradictions of capitalism. The views of the Narodniks and Lenin’s criticism of them constitute a significant historical example. The Narodniks, who claimed that accepting the progressive role of capitalism would mean defending capitalism, made every effort to spread this false view.

The debates on the historical mission of capitalism should have been long over for Marxists. But unfortunately, there has never been and never will be a lack of political tendencies that preach in the name of Marxism and make it lifeless in petty-bourgeois narrow-mindedness. Even though there are many differences in terms of political style and organizational tactics, the Narodnik petty-bourgeois that Lenin criticized is, in a way, still at work today. This petty-bourgeois never comes to grips with the fact that capitalist development is in fact developing the conditions that will make its overthrow possible. From the past debates to the current debates on globalisation, the idea that opponents of capitalism, infected with petty-bourgeois parochialism, cling to is the preservation of the old. Petty-bourgeois socialism, the most typical example of which in modern times is the Third Worldist tendencies, like the Narodniks of the old days, keeps looking for masses of people who have not been “corrupted” by capitalism and are “waiting to be saved”.

It must be clearly stated that the petty-bourgeois criticism of capitalism has never in any period of history served to strengthen the revolutionary struggle of the working class. The problems have diversified and changed over the years, but the petty-bourgeois mindset has always remained in place. Because of the influence of the political ideas of the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois left, socialist circles around the world have been dominated by many erroneous views on many issues. A lightminded and unrealistic interpretation of the general consequences of certain important developments for the world capitalist system has caused the socialist movement to lose credibility in general. One can recall, for example, those analyses that downplayed the possibility of underdeveloped countries and regions or collapsing bureaucratic regimes becoming increasingly integrated into capitalist system.

Such views are also one of the main reasons why the world labour movement has been generally unprepared since the 60s for the new period of upheaval. And it is possible to find many examples of these misjudgements in both Stalinist and Trotskyist circles. For example, developments with possibilities of enormous significance on a world level were dismissed with the fallacies that either “real socialism” would easily defeat capitalism or that the success of national liberation struggles would set capitalism back. On the other hand, the interpretation of the developments in the process that followed the collapse of the bureaucratic regimes in the Soviet Union and the like was again turned into a petty criticism of capitalism. The possibility of the integration of these countries into the capitalist system has been greatly underestimated. There have been shortsighted approaches that the political crises created by the process of collapse would never let capitalism in.

The collapse of the bureaucratic regimes in the Soviet Union and the like has revealed that there is no fundamental obstacle to the integration of these countries into the world capitalist system. This has been proven by today’s capitalist Russia. Or, as in the case of China, it is proved once again by the process of feverish capitalist development taking place under the top-down control of ruling bureaucracy rapidly becoming bourgeois. It must be remembered that the question was not whether such processes of capitalist integration were economically feasible. For Marxists, the historical problem was how the world working class could benefit from the political storms that such processes would create and how this could be made possible.

Is colonialism coming back?

By the turn of the 20th century capitalism jumped from colonialism to the stage of imperialism at a time when division of the world territorially among colonial capitalist powers has already been completed. During the First World War, the great capitalist powers drove humanity into a hell of war in order to redivide the world. The masses of workers and laborers of various countries were pitted against each other for the exchange of colonial territories and spheres of influence, which were seen as sources of cheap raw materials or a simple market for the manufactured goods of the advanced capitalist countries.

Capitalism also moved forward by putting an end to the empires of the past and incorporating these geographies into the system of capitalist relations, as seen in the examples of Tsarist Russia and the Ottoman Empire. New regions would no longer have to be reduced to colonial or semi-colonial status in order to be included in the capitalist system. The fact that imperialism was a different stage from colonialism would become much more clearly grasped over time as the former colonial countries gained their political independence.

Developments in the capitalist system and the nature of economic relations between countries at different levels of development have nevertheless been subject to contradictory interpretations for many years. The differences in the interpretation of the inequality that dominates the relations between various nation-states and the erroneous or opportunist theses put forward in the name of Marxism are concrete examples of this. Completely erroneous political views and conclusions have been derived from the inevitable dependence of countries that have gained political independence and established their own nation-states on economically developed capitalist countries. Those views that for years have dealt with the imperialist expansionism of capitalism from the angle of colonialism are now being reproduced in the globalisation debate which served as a pretext.

For some reason, false ideas that seek to explain globalisation as a resurgence of colonialism are very popular. The US, the most aggressive country of global capitalism, is portrayed as the colonial emperor. This so-called anti-globalism, which has no trace of Marxism, is incapable of erecting an alternative to capitalist globalisation that transcends it. Insisting on the defence of national and local interests in the face of globalisation means not really opposing capitalism and wanting to preserve it in some form. Even if political theses that mean this wrap themselves in sharp-sounding “revolutionary” rhetoric, the essence remains the same: this is bourgeois politics. Statist politics, which lays the foundation for capitalism, or nationalist politics, which defends the interests of the domestic bourgeoisie, or reformist politics, which tries to fix capitalism in one way or another, can never lead the masses of workers and laborers to liberation. None of such politics can lead the poor and exploited masses to a better social order. Those who want emancipation must set their sights on the future, that is, on the workers’ revolution that will overthrow capitalism and the workers’ power that will make possible the transition to socialism.

The efforts of the imperialist powers to create new spheres of influence in the world and redivide the existing ones do not mean a return to colonialism or a revival of colonialism. The desire of the great capitalist powers to dominate the world and control other countries politically and economically is not unique to the period of colonial empires. Capitalism, by its very nature, always wants to reach wider markets, to spread across the world. And in terms of its potential for deep expansion across the world, the period of imperialism is a more advanced stage of capitalism than the period of colonialism. The capitalist mode of production has achieved the possibility of real expansion on a world scale by monopolizing, by becoming imperialist. Famous British politicians, who were aware of this law of development, used to preach “become imperialist”. Today, in countries like Turkey, the financial oligarchy expresses its ambition to gain a stronger position in the world economy with the command “globalize”.

The difference of imperialism from the colonial phase has become clear with the developments in the 20th century. Today, the imperialist powers, especially the USA, with its post-September 11 aggression, have not returned from imperialist expansionism to colonialism. The aim of the wars of repartition and the accompanying occupations, which started recently in the Balkans and then spread to other regions and countries in Asia, Africa and the Middle East, is not to annex territories, as was the case during the colonial period. The imperialist powers are not waging wars of repartition with the aim of putting an end to the nation-states in these territories and reducing them to the status of colonies.

In our time, the ambition of the big capitalist countries is not colonialism but imperialist expansionism. That is why these countries are seeking to create new political forms in order to expand and consolidate their spheres of influence, precisely in the manner characteristic of the imperialist phase. Rival imperialist powers can create new nation-states in geographies that can be divided into multiple parts on the basis of ethnic, religious, sectarian and national divisions. In unstable regions like the Middle East, the number of nation-states whose borders were once drawn with a ruler on a map may change. But such developments do not change the nature of imperialist expansionism. For the imperialist powers, the goal is to establish governments loyal to them in the spheres of influence that are subject to repartition, and to bring capitalism to the politically controlled regions compatible with their own interests.

On the other hand, to emphasize the reality that explains the general trend, we should underline that capitalism spreading on a world scale has actually created the possibility of transcending localism and nationalism. Globalisation, which connects capitalist countries large and small on the basis of uneven relations, also causes a structural change by freeing underdeveloped countries from isolation and integrating them into the world economy. The expansion of capitalism’s sphere of dominance means the geographical expansion of world markets and the transformation of existing ones compatible with new needs. Capitalism is not a static economic system that is content with what it finds. And most importantly, the dissolution of backward economic structures under the influence of globalizing capitalism and their articulation into the world system is not at all a development that obstructs the path of the working class in historical terms. Because the emancipation of humanity does not require halting of global development, but transcending capitalist globalisation by socialist globalisation.

Beware of distortions!

Capitalism’s need for expansion stems from inherent economic laws, but these laws are not self-executing. The politics pursued by nation-states and the conflicts and wars between powers are decisive in the actualization of the impositions rising from the economic base. Today, the shaking at the bottom caused by these economic laws is felt primarily in the countries that have the decisive power in the system. In these countries, the imperatives arising from the economic basis dictate the formulation of general and long-term political strategies that do not depend much on changes of government. As we have witnessed most strikingly in Britain under Blair’s Labour Party, the right/left distinction between the bourgeois parties of the past has lost much of its significance.

The political line taken by bourgeois “workers’ parties” such as the social-democratic, socialist parties or British Labour Party, as well as bourgeois parties called liberal or conservative, is shaped much more clearly and strikingly than in the past by the current needs of big capital. The repartition plan that the US is trying to impose on the Eurasian scale today is not limited to the calculations of Bush’s team of “neo-cons”, the so-called neoconservatives. The Greater Middle East Project generally reflects the desires of American finance capital. The extent to which these strategies can or cannot be realized will undoubtedly be determined by the economic, political and military position of the conflicting parties in the world balance of power.

Regional powers occupy an uneven position vis-à-vis imperialist countries, which are mobilizing to expand their market space in economically underdeveloped geographies or to transform them to suit their own purposes. Nevertheless, it is obvious that various nation-states or different power centres such as Shiite/Sunni, Turkmen/Kurdish, etc. in the regions subject to repartition have taken and will take action in one direction or another to protect their own interests. Therefore, the influence of these different factors and forces on the course of events cannot be completely neglected. Nevertheless, we must never forget that as long as we remain within the capitalist system, the economically and militarily strong positions will prevail.

In fact, the leaderships of various national movements in the globalizing capitalist world are well aware of the world balance. They make their calculations accordingly; they try to take advantage of the conflicts between rival imperialist powers. However, for years, in the name of Marxism, national resistance has been given such an overblown meaning that the enormous difference in scope between the goals of national liberation and social liberation has been obscured. Today it will not be possible to adequately illuminate the path of the revolutionary struggle of the working class without repeatedly confronting such distortions.

Exaggerated and erroneous views on the consequences of national liberation struggles are based on the denial of the change in the functioning of the system brought about by the imperialist stage of capitalism. Even if revolutionary Marxism’s analysis of imperialism is accepted in words, in content it is generally treated just like colonialism. The class question is overshadowed and the national question is brought to the fore. From this point of view, the underdeveloped or moderately developed regions and countries of the capitalist system are declared as if they were a classless “land of the oppressed”. Economic dependence on the imperialist powers is equated with colonial status, and in countries that have gained political independence, the main problems are still considered within the scope of national liberation struggles.

Thus, the bourgeoisie of such capitalist countries is promoted to the level of a kind of “oppressed” element that must be protected and supported against imperialist powers. Instead of mobilizing to strengthen the independent struggle of the proletariat, these “oppressed” bourgeois governments are supported on the occasion of every problem that erupts. Let us refresh memories. During the first Gulf War, under the pretext of supporting the oppressed nation against American imperialism, support was offered to the bourgeois Saddam government, which in fact oppressed the Iraqi working class, Kurds and other minorities. And unfortunately, such political attitudes have been maintained for years in the name of revolutionism, in the name of Marxism.

We need to be careful! Because today, instead of building a revolutionary alternative to the strategies of imperialist powers against underdeveloped and developing regions, the masses of workers and laborers are being trapped in a vicious cycle that does not go beyond the framework of national liberationism. The claim that imperialism can be defeated through national liberation struggles is a sinister and unrealistic claim that can never be verified in real life. A national liberation struggle that does not turn into a struggle for social revolution does not transcend the bourgeois solution framework even when it achieves the right to political independence. It is very clear where the bourgeoisie of an oppressed nation, which gains the right to establish its own nation-state and attempts to do so, will set its sights. The attitude of the leaderships of Barzani and Talabani, who lead the Kurdish independence movement in Northern Iraq, is obvious.

Therefore, one must never be mistaken about an important issue. Capitalism, which rises on nation-state organization, has no fundamental problem with the establishment of nation-states in countries that were once colonies. Although, as exemplified in Turkey, the insistence of the state-building bureaucrat bourgeoisie of the oppressor nation on the red lines that have become the symbol of their raison d’être for years can and has led to various conflicts. But the dominant character of capitalist relations that will ultimately bring these bureaucrats into line cannot be underestimated. Indeed, over time, new nation-states were established in many former colonial countries. Some of the oppressed nations were able to gain their political independence as a result of their struggles. Therefore, to claim that the solution of the national question will never be possible under capitalism is incompatible with reality. But there is undoubtedly a difference from solution to solution.

The Kurds’ exercise of their right to self-determination within the bourgeois framework, their becoming a constituent element in the new Iraqi structure, or the acceptance of their demands for federalism as a result of the events that have developed today on the basis of the US invasion of Iraq is also a solution. However, such solutions will always be doomed to become bargaining chips for rival capitalist powers. On the other hand, as long as the solution to a national question remains within the bourgeois scope, it is perfectly logical for the national movement representing it to receive support from this or that imperialist power. Thus, a nation’s right to self-determination can, and indeed has, resulted in the creation of a new nation-state under the leadership of bourgeois sections of that nation.

But let us not forget that such a development will never be able to completely eliminate the problems arising from the national division created and fuelled by capitalism. No matter how we look at it, it is so obvious that a holistic and irreversible solution to this problem, as with all the problems discussed, will only be possible with the abolition of capitalism, that perhaps there is no need to say much at this point.