Papers by Mehmet Gürsan Şenalp
Global & Transnational Sociology Newsletter, 2025
One of the crucial intellectual veins that nurtured American institutionalism was the so-called A... more One of the crucial intellectual veins that nurtured American institutionalism was the so-called American School of Political Economy (the "American School" for short). This tradition, although influential in American economic debates in the second half of the nineteenth century, was later relegated to the margins of the history of economic thought. Its leading figure, Henry Charles Carey (1793-1879), developed an alternative vision to the Ricardian and Malthusian strands of British political economy, which, in his view, did not fit the realities of the "American system." Influenced by Alexander Hamilton's protectionist and nationalist ideas, Carey defended the interests of the industrial bourgeoisie in the North, criticized monopolies as a key evil of his age, but traced the blame for such monopolistic tendencies to Britain and its regime of free trade. In line with this position, he became the founder of the Society for the Protection of American Industry (Helleiner, 2019: 15; Hudson, 2010). Unsurprisingly, Carey and his followers became the intellectual favorites of Northern industrial capitalists, who sought to maintain high tariffs in order to compete with Britain.
Praksis (Sayı 69), 2025
Bu makaledeki tartışma, Filistin’deki soykırımı –kimlik siyasetinin mağduriyet çerçevelerinin öte... more Bu makaledeki tartışma, Filistin’deki soykırımı –kimlik siyasetinin mağduriyet çerçevelerinin ötesinde – küresel kapitalizmin güncel işleyiş biçimleri, devlet şiddetinin yapısal boyutları ve kolektif direnişin imkânları çerçevesinde ele alan çözümlemelere daha fazla ihtiyaç olduğu düşüncesinden yola çıkıyor.. Makalenin cevap aradığı sorunsalı ise şu: Yetmiş beş yıldır Filistinlilere dayatılan sömürgeci yerleşimcilik, etnik temizlik dalgaları ve apartheid şiddeti neden tam olarak bugün bir soykırıma dönüştü? Bu bağlamda, ilk olarak, Gazze’de yaşananların küresel kapitalizmin ulusötesi kapitalist seçkinlerin dahi kayıtsız kalamadıkları derin krizlerinden soyutlayarak anlaşılamayacağı öne sürüyoruz. İsrail’in Gazze’ye dönük imha siyaseti, bir yönüyle, “Yahudi devletinin” kendi varoluşuna tehdit olarak gördüğü unsurlara karşı sürdürdüğü etno-ulusalcı mücadelenin bir parçasıdır. Ancak, bir yönüyle de, küresel jeopolitik yeniden yapılanmanın merkezinde konumlanan bu yeni şiddet biçimi, her geçen gün “artık insanlık” saflarına itilen milyonlar için gerçek zamanlı bir “alarm zili” olarak görülmelidir. Büyük teknoloji tekelleri, askeri-sanayi-üniversite-güvenlik kompleksi içinde merkezî bir konum edinmiş olup, yapay zekâ tabanlı gözetim sistemleri, algoritmik veri işleme teknikleri ve kentsel savaş/imha pratikleri üzerinden yeni kâr alanları yaratmaktadır. Bu süreç, hem askerileşmiş birikim hem de baskı yoluyla birikim dinamikleriyle uyumludur; zira hem küresel ölçekte kitlesel gözetim ve kontrol mekanizmaları inşa edilmekte, hem de kent mekânları doğrudan şiddet üzerinden sermaye birikiminin sahasına dönüştürülmektedir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Küresel Kapitalizm, Askerileşmiş Birikim, Soykırım, İsrail, Filistin
Global Capitalism, Israeli Colonialism, and the Palestinian Resistance Against Apartheid
Abstract
The discussion in this article stems from the idea that there is a pressing need for analyses that address the genocide in Palestine – beyond the victimhood frameworks of identitarian politics – within the context of the present-day functioning of global capitalism, the structural dimensions of state violence, and the possibilities of collective resistance. The question the article seeks to answer is this: Why has the violence of colonial settlement, waves of ethnic cleansing, and apartheid imposed on Palestinians for seventy-five years now escalated into genocide? In this context, we argue, first, that what is happening in Gaza cannot be understood in isolation from the deep crises of global capitalism, which even transnational capitalist elites cannot remain indifferent to. Israel's policy of annihilation towards Gaza is, in one sense, part of the ethno-nationalist struggle waged by the “Jewish state” against elements it perceives as threats to its own existence. However, in another sense, this new form of violence, positioned at the center of global geopolitical restructuring, should be seen as a real-time “alarm bell” for the millions who are being increasingly pushed into the ranks of the “surplus-humanity.” Big tech monopolies have secured a central position within the military-industrial-academic-security complex, creating new profit areas through AI-based surveillance systems, algorithmic data processing techniques, and urban warfare/destruction practices. This process is consistent with both militarized accumulation and accumulation by repression dynamics; for while mass surveillance and control mechanisms are being built on a global scale, urban spaces are being transformed into arenas of capital accumulation through direct violence..
Keywords: Global Capitalism, Militarized Accumulation, Genocide, Israel, Palestine
Praksis, 2023
William I. Robinson, 1980'lerin sonlarından bu yana çok sayıda akademik/politik eser vermiş üretk... more William I. Robinson, 1980'lerin sonlarından bu yana çok sayıda akademik/politik eser vermiş üretken bir Marksist kuramcı. Bilimsel çalışmaları, küreselleşme sürecinin zirveye ulaştığı 90'lı yıllarda daha fazla tanınır hale geldi. Bu dönemde dünya çok boyutlu krizlerle uğraşmak zorunda kalacaktı. Elinizdeki makale Robinson'un Küresel Kapitalizm Teorisi ile ilgilenmekte; bunu da yazarın Küresel Polis Devleti (Ayrıntı, 2022) adlı kitabıyla diyalog içerisinde yapmaktadır. Bu kitap sadece yazarın geliştirdiği teorik modeli tam olarak tasvir etmekle kalmıyor, aynı zamanda 2008 küresel mali krizinin ardından sürekli derinleşen çok boyutlu "insanlık krizine" de odaklanıyor. Günümüzü karakterize eden askerileşmiş birikim ve yağmacı finansallaşma gibi olgular ışığında Robinson'un bu kitapta neler söylediğine geçmeden önce yazarın teorik modelinin gelişimine kısaca göz atmak istiyoruz.
Fiscaoeconomica
Extended Abstract
Capitalism underwent a fundamental transformation starting with the late 19t... more Extended Abstract
Capitalism underwent a fundamental transformation starting with the late 19th and early 20th centuries. There was a rapid movement of the rural population towards the big cities, the emergence of new urban middle-classes, large-scale migration, the decline of small-scale enterprises in favor of giant corporations and monopolies. While the capital accumulation processes were institutionalized within the large joint stock companies, the U.S. was emerging as a great power in world politics. This period represents a crucial turning point in the history of the U.S., which has rapidly transformed into the world's largest industrial power, in many respects. For one thing, the oil and railroad industries and famous business tycoons like John D. Rockefeller and Cornelius Vanderbilt – 'robber barons' as Veblen put it – were products of this era. Being the homeland of mass production inevitably made the U.S. the homeland of giant companies. The merger processes were first seen in the railways, and with the spread of mass production, shifted to the manufacturing industry.
With marginalism and neoclassical theory, economists would find a framework that tried to understand and radically defend this new situation. Accompanying theory went hand in hand with discourses about the virtues of free competition and self-regulating markets in creating wealth and class harmony. This new discourse was static, deductive, axiomatic and based on universal laws supposedly valid in all societies, regardless of their peculiarities. By the late 1870s, however, political distinctions at the level of discourse began to rise. While a large group of economists thought that the centralization of economic power brought about by uncontrolled and unregulated economic growth did not harm the republican foundations of the American society, a second group, small but heterogeneous, believed that economic growth should be achieved through effective government interventions. It was in such an environment that academic economists in the U.S. were drawn into the debate between the neoclassical orthodoxy and the 'Institutionalist School' that challenged them. The Marxists of the day were not a part of this contention because the ideas of Marx and his followers were not yet known or poorly understood (or perhaps found frightening). Nevertheless, the view that institutionalism should not be ignored was widespread among Marxist economists, who believed that both analyses were converging on certain points. It should be noted, however, that institutionalism, characterized as a group influenced by Veblen's radical/critical ideas, was never destined to be a subject to absolute obscuration by being practically 'ignored', just in the case of Marx and his ideas. According to Veblen, private property, firm, competition, market and similar institutions were the collective, settled 'habits of thought' that emerged in the historical process. Therefore, being neglected by the mainstream theories until that day, these institutions could not be considered separately from economics. This point was central to Veblen's 'evolutionary' and 'genetic' approach against the ahistorical, static analyzes of the neoclassical economists. After all, for Veblen, the neoclassical theory – to use his own phrase – was basically nothing but inserting the concept of 'marginal utility' into the classical political economy of Smith, Ricardo and Mill.
This study’s starting point is the actual relevance of Thorstein Veblen's critique of capitalist society, which came to the fore at the beginning of the last century. In other words, if Veblen were alive, I believe, he would not have taken a different angle towards the vested interests of the robber barons and the conspicuous leisure of our time, other than he did in his time. Let alone praising their evolutionary superiority, Veblen would probably continue his fierce condemnation to the predatory behaviors of the present-day captains of finance and enterprise, whose actions are deliberately sabotaging our material and technical evolution. After all, it is impossible to argue that in the U.S. or anywhere else the predatory instincts have weakened, the peaceful and constructive motives of the instinct of workmanship have prevailed, and the pecuniary culture and morality of the idleness have been replaced by different virtues. Presently, such phenomena as admiration for predatory skills, submission to the dominance hierarchy, and replacement of knowledge with myth and ritual are much more powerful and widespread than Veblen observed in the past. Such predatory practices and institutions as financialization, real estate speculation, tax havens, shadow banking, price inflation, extreme competition, credit manipulations, counterfeiting, sabotage of production, vilification of neighbors, the sanctification of business people, the glorification of salesmanship, and last but not least, the conspicuous consumption and conspicuous waste continue to be the indispensable elements of capitalist society. Therefore, it is not surprising that some critical economists and social scientists have always been influenced by Veblen's institutionalist/evolutionary economics. Indeed, ever-expanding international literature has long been developed on the contemporary relevance of Veblen’s ideas.
This study focuses on the last quarter of the 1800s, known as the Gilded Age in the U.S., and the first half of the 20th century, namely the Progressive Era and New Deal years. In doing so, the paper first nails down the relations among some leading figures of the American institutionalists with the German Historical School and the American School of Political Economy (or American School) during the Gilded Age. It has been widely accepted that the former group was heavily influenced by the latter schools. As is known, institutionalism was able to challenge the hegemony of neoclassical economics throughout the Gilded Age and the following Progressive Era, gaining important positions in the economics departments of American universities. Thus, the first two sections of this study focus on the so-called 'American', 'original' and 'radical' aspects of institutionalism. The main concern here is to understand how could Institutional/Evolutionary Economics, chiefly represented by Veblen’s biting satirical writings and radical critique of American capitalism that mostly mocked the lavish lifestyles of the nouveau riche of the day, be seen as powerful as neoclassical theory, and constituted a kind of 'orthodoxy' position in a country like the U.S. In seeking answers to this question, I focus on such a period of time during which the principal figures of American Institutionalism had made their appearance. The rest of the paper focuses on three distinct moments through which American Institutionalism was formed and became influential: (1) the influence of the German Historical School through Germany-trained ‘new generation’ of economists, (2) the contributions of the American School with their protectionist/nationalist doctrines, which was long forgotten by the mid-20th century. I attempt to address the direct relationship between institutionalism’s culmination into a mainstream position in the U.S. (at least for a while) and the protectionist critique developed throughout the 19th century against the Ricardian/Malthusian classical political economy, and its laissez-faire doctrine. My discussion also aims to address (3) the social class origins and characteristics of institutionalism by trying to identify the key social class interests that it served or was appealed to. Hence, I contend that American institutionalism can be interpreted as "left-managerialism". The vast literature on the so-called 'Managerial Revolution', which pointed to the rise of a new 'managerial class' in the private and public sectors during the 1920s and 30s in the U.S., is of crucial importance for the present paper. I argue that the American institutionalists of the day were the 'organic intellectuals,' representing the progressive elements of this newly rising class in the New Deal. It was this organic relationship that was behind the success of institutionalism in the U.S.
Fiscaoeconomia, Jan 25, 2023
Bu çalışma, ABD'de Yaldızlı Çağ (Gilded Age) olarak bilinen 1800'lerin son çeyreği ile 20. yüzyıl... more Bu çalışma, ABD'de Yaldızlı Çağ (Gilded Age) olarak bilinen 1800'lerin son çeyreği ile 20. yüzyılın ilk yarısına-İlerici Dönem (Progressive Era) ve Yeni Düzen (New Deal) yıllarına-odaklanmaktadır. Bunu yaparken, makale ilk başta Amerikan kurumsalcılarının bazı önde gelen isimlerinin yoğun şekilde etkilendikleri Alman Tarihsel Okulu ve Amerikan Siyasal İktisat Okulu (ya da Amerikan Okulu) ile ilişkilerine bakıyor. Yaygın görüş kurumsalcılığın neoklasik iktisadın hegemonyasına direnebilmiş ve Amerikan üniversitelerindeki iktisat bölümlerinde önemli bir ağırlık elde edebilmiş olduğu yönündedir. Dolayısıyla, çalışmanın ilk iki bölümü kurumsalcılığın, 'Amerikan', 'orijinal' ve 'radikal' olarak anılan unsurlarına odaklanıyor. Yazının asli meselesi ise şu: "Veblen gibi bir figürün Amerikan kapitalizmine karşı radikal görüşleri ve sonradan görme zenginlerin gösterişçi yaşam tarzlarıyla alay eden iğneleyici yazılarıyla özdeş Kurumsalcı/Evrimselci iktisat, ABD akademisi, araştırma enstitüleri ve bürokrasisinde 'neoklasik teoriyle eşit önemde' görülüp bir tür ana akım konumunu nasıl edebildi?" Bu bağlamda, çalışma, Amerikan Kurumsalcılığının şekillendiği ve etkili olduğu üç farklı kesite odaklanıyor. Bunların ilk ikisinde (1) Alman Tarihsel Okulu'nun Almanya'da tahsil görmüş 'yeni nesil' iktisatçılar aracılığıyla yarattığı etki, (2) 20. yüzyılın ortalarında artık çoktan unutulmuş Amerikan Okulu'nun korumacı/milliyetçi doktrinlerinin etkisi üzerine odaklanılıyor. Yazı, son olarak (3) Amerikan kurumsalcılığının toplumsal sınıf kökenlerini açığa çıkaran 1930'lardaki 'yönetimsel devrim' tartışmalarına uzanıyor. Burada Amerikan kurumsalcılarının, Yeni Düzen yıllarında yükselen 'yönetimsel sınıfın' ilerici unsurlarını temsil eden 'organik aydınları' olduğu ve geleneğin ABD'deki başarısının arkasında bu organik ilişkinin bulunduğu iddia ediliyor.
The Ergenekon trials were among the most controversial issues in the recent political history of ... more The Ergenekon trials were among the most controversial issues in the recent political history of Turkey. It is still worth reconsidering the liberal, nationalist, and socialist-left circles' variegated responses to the subject matter. The first two were doomed to fail since each attached itself to one side of the intra-state struggles. Although the socialist-left's approach was enlightening in many ways, there is a significant shortcoming in its theoretical references to explain the transnational rivalries inherent in the process. An alternative research agenda offered by the Amsterdam School could enrich its conceptual toolkit in more comprehensive ways. To evaluate this potentiality, we need to engage in two conceptual problems regarding the theory: (1) Could the concept of state class be helpful to analyze the political economy of Turkey’s Ergenekon trials? (2) Could any key social/class force be distinguished to shed light upon the transnational aspect of the process?
Praksis, 2019
İncelediğimiz bu yapıt, uzun yıllardır çok sayıda ortak akademik/politik çalışma gerçekleştiren K... more İncelediğimiz bu yapıt, uzun yıllardır çok sayıda ortak akademik/politik çalışma gerçekleştiren Kanadalı Marksist siyasal iktisatçı Leo Panitch ve sendikacı aktivist Sam Gindin'in şüphesiz en önemli metinlerinden bir tanesi.
Praksis, 2017
Öz Bu çalışma 2000'lerin ilk on yılında " Yeni Türkiye " nin dış ilişkilerinin ekonomi-politiğine... more Öz Bu çalışma 2000'lerin ilk on yılında " Yeni Türkiye " nin dış ilişkilerinin ekonomi-politiğine odaklanıyor. İlk kısımda son yıllarda öne çıkan ve dış politikaya politik ekonomi perspektifinden yaklaşan bazı ana akım çalışmalar eleştirel bir değerlendirmeye tabi tutuluyor. İkinci kısımdaki kuramsal tartışma ise Marksist uluslararası (veya küresel) politik ekonomi (UPE) yazınında " Amsterdam Okulu " olarak bilinen çevrenin katkılarına dayanıyor. Analiz Van der Pijl'i izleyerek Yeni-Osmanlıcılığı, ulusötesi bir kontrol kavramı (hegemonya projesi) olarak sistem kaynaklı neoliberalizme belirli şartlarda eklemlenmek üzere dizayn edilen bir sınıf projesi olarak okuyor. Buna göre bölgesel düzeyde bir kontrol kavramı olarak Erdoğan ve Davutoğlu tarafından pazarlığa sürülen söz konusu stratejinin kaderi sistemik ve ulusötesi mücadeleler diyalektiğince çizilmiştir. Bu mücadeleler dünyayı yıkıma sürükleyen para ticareti yapan (money-dealing) ulusötesi sermaye fraksiyonunun küresel liderliğine karşı ve ondan yana olan sermaye fraksiyonları ve işçi sınıfları arasında; ulusal, bölgesel ve uluslararası seviyelerde bir çok devlet bağlamında aynı anda cereyan etmektedir. Abstract This paper focuses on the political economy of the foreign relations of the " New Turkey ". The first part of the paper critically engages with some of the mainstream analyses of international relations from a political economy perspective. A short theoretical discussion in the second part relies on the analysis of " Amsterdam School " and its critical Marxist approach to international (or global) political economy (IPE). Here, by following Van der Pijl's analysis, I understand the Neo-Ottomanism as a class project emerged as a transnational comprehensive concept of control (hegemonic project) to be integrated into systemic neoliberalism on certain terms. The faith of the quest made by Erdogan and Davutoglu for a regional concept of control was determined by the dialectics of the systemic and transnational struggles. Such struggles have been taking place simultaneously at the national, regional and international levels and within the context of many states and regions; between the classes and capital fractions standing for or against the global leadership of money-dealing capital fraction that is leading world to a catastrophe.
Faruk Yalvaç (der.) Tarihsel Materyalizm ve Uluslararası İlişkiler, Ankara: İmge
İktisat ve Toplum
Bu çalışmanın amacı, kurumsal iktisadın gelişim hikâyesi üzerinden, iktisatta anaakım veya hetero... more Bu çalışmanın amacı, kurumsal iktisadın gelişim hikâyesi üzerinden, iktisatta anaakım veya heterodoks olmak üzerine mütevazı bir tartışma geliştirmektir. Bu işi ise Kenneth E. Boulding, David Colander, Eyüp Özveren, Frederic S. Lee, Geoffrey Hodgson ve Tony Lawson gibi isimlerin önemli bulduğum kimi çalışmalarına referansla gerçekleştirmeyi umuyorum. Burada ilk olarak iktisatta anaakım, ortodoks ve heterodoks yaklaşımlar üzerine genel bir betimleyici tartışma yürütecek, ardından kurumsal iktisadı bu tartışma içerisine anlamlı bir şekilde oturtmayı deneyeceğim. Amacım, pek çok farklı alan ve konu için de geçerli olmak üzere, hakkında yeterince tartışma yürütülmeyen ve özensizce kullanılan “heterodoks” kavramının iktisadi düşünce geleneği içerisinde kurumsal iktisat gibi kimi okullara/ekollere aslında kendilerinin dahi sahiplenmediği bazı abartılı rolleri atfeden bir dizi hatalı kabullerin oluşumuna hizmet ettiğini göstermektir.
Transform Network
How have global rivalries shaped the world we live in, and how do they continue to affect the way... more How have global rivalries shaped the world we live in, and how do they continue to affect the way some of the most crucial geopolitical decisions of our time are made? In this interview with renowned political scientist Kees van der Pijl, we look at some of the most pivotal events of recent years, from 9/11 to the Arab Spring and the current crisis in Ukraine, to reveal the surprising underlying forces at work.
Edebiyattaki İktisat (Ç. Akdere ve D. Güler Aydın der.) içinde, 191-233, Sep 2014
Bu çalışmanın ana odağında, Ernest Mandel’in iktisat ve edebiyatın buluştuğu son derece verimli b... more Bu çalışmanın ana odağında, Ernest Mandel’in iktisat ve edebiyatın buluştuğu son derece verimli bir zemin üzerine kurduğu Hoş Cinayet adlı incelemesinde sergilediği eleştirel çözümlemeler bulunmaktadır. Çalışmanın ilk bölümünde Mandel’in katkısı üzerinden iktisat, politika, sanat, edebiyat ve polisiye ilişkileri ele alınıyor. İkinci kısımda ise çalışmaya işlevsel bir arka plan oluşturması amacıyla suç ve edebiyatın kesiştiği alan olarak polisiye romanın tarihini, kökenlerini ve ‘ne olduğunu’ inceliyoruz. Klasik polisiye romanın teorik ve pratik açılımlarına ve türe yönelen eleştirilere dikkat çekmek suretiyle onun edebiyat içerisindeki yerini anlamak bu kısımdaki bir diğer amacımız. Son kısımda kapsamlı bir Hoş Cinayet değerlendirmesi yapılıyor. Burada klasik dedektif hikâyelerinin arka fonunu oluşturan burjuva toplumunda suç ve edebiyatın ekonomi-politiği, klasik polisiye romanın biçim ve ideolojisinin eleştirisi, polisiye romana yönelik kitlesel talebin belirleyicileri ve ABD’de örgütlü suçun yükselişi ve ‘kara edebiyat’ gibi başlıklar altında Mandel’in polisiye roman eleştirisinin ana hatları çıkarılıyor.
Atilim Social Sciences Journal, Nov 2012
This paper, on the one hand, focuses on the ways to build the bridges between economics and engin... more This paper, on the one hand, focuses on the ways to build the bridges between economics and engineering activities and, on the other hand, includes some critical evaluations on the relationships between economics and the other science disciplines. In order to make some sense of its existing political and ideological roots, the question of mathematical formalism in economic research and education will be examined. The aim of this effort is to expose the political and ideological aspects of this seemingly methodological problem.
Birikim, Nov 2012
Makalenin Künyesi: Birikim, sayı 283 (Kasım 2012), 72-78] Giriş AKP'nin kurmaylarından Hüseyin Çe... more Makalenin Künyesi: Birikim, sayı 283 (Kasım 2012), 72-78] Giriş AKP'nin kurmaylarından Hüseyin Çelik partisinin adının Batılı medya organlarında 'Đslamcı', 'Đslami kökenli', 'Đslami eğilimleri olan' gibi sıfatlarla birlikte anılmasından duyduğu rahatsızlığı dile getirirken: "Evet, Ak Parti muhafazakar demokrat bir partidir. [Ancak] Ak Parti'nin muhafazakarlığı ahlaki ve sosyal konularla sınırlıdır" demişti. 1 Burada tekrar bugünlerin gözde konusu olan "Türkiye muhafazakarlaşıyor mu?" tartışmasına girecek değilim; ancak bu cümleyi, AKP'li yılların ekonomi politiği tartışmasına bir giriş noktası olarak alacağım. Zira iktidar partisi bugünlerde sosyal ve ahlaki meselelerin dışında, örneğin iç ve dış politikada, Kürt meselesinde ve Suriye'yle ilişkilerde ve eğitimde 4+4+4 konusunda Sünni-Türk muhafazakarlığın sınırlarını giderek daha fazla zorlarken, iktisadi meselelerde en başından beri liberal hatta 'ultra-liberal' bir çizgide son derece istikrarlı bir biçimde yol alıyor. Aslında 2002'de iktidara geldiklerinde çıkardıkları Milli Görüş gömleklerini gardroplarının en ücra köşesine tıkıştırmış, şık lacivert Avrupai takım elbiseleri sırtlarına geçimiş, zamanı geldiğinde ise sinek kaydı tıraşlarını olup bıyıkları kesmişlerdi ancak yine de içeride ve dışarıda 'durumdan rahatsız' pek çok kişi ve kurumun kaygılarını giderebilmek için "Acil Eylem Planı"nı kamuoyuna duyurmaları gerekmişti. O zaman görüldü ki o 'islamcı', 'takkiyeci' ve 'şeriat istiyorlar' dedikleri, ülkenin eksenini kaydırıp bizi Batı'dan ve dünyadan koparacak dedikleri AKP, düpedüz Kemal Derviş'in neoliberal yönetişim programını devam ettirmek için yola çıkıyordu. On yıllık iktidarında eğitim, sağlık, demokratikleşme, terörle mücadele, Kürt ve Alevi açılımları, AB, ABD ve Đsrail ile ilişkiler ve genel olarak dış politika gibi pek çok alanda gerek söylem gerekse icraat düzeyinde sık sık yüz seksen derecelik savrulmalar gösteren AKP'nin, neoliberal ekonomi politikaları söz konusu olduğunda takındığı katı ve tavizsiz tutum dikkate değerdir. Peki, bu durum nasıl açıklanabilir? 1 "AKP explains charter changes, slams foreigns descriptions," Hürriyer Daily ews, 03.28.2010
Praksis (Sayı 19), s.191-240, 2009
Memleket Siyaset Yönetim, 2008
This paper examines the relationship between state and bourgeoisie within a transnational histori... more This paper examines the relationship between state and bourgeoisie within a transnational historical materialist framework. That is, some certain patterns of transnational rivalries, which take place both in national and international levels, among diverse fractions of capitalist class and between the great powers of capitalist system will be analyzed. In the first chapter of this work, we will briefly explain some basic concepts frequently used in our analysis such as “capitalist class”, “class consciousness” and “class fractions.” The second part deals with the transnational phenomenon and the transnational capitalist class formation theses. The main argument developed here is that to understand the very nature of social class relations / struggles and the conflicts among the dominant classes that occur within the borders of a nation-state, we have to make clear the fundamental characteristics of the contemporary capitalism. In this respect, we draw upon the concept of “transnational rivalries” developed by Kees van der Pijl in his pathbreaking works and his, in our opinion, “accurate” approach to the global political economy. Therefore the third chapter of this study focuses on the dual structure of transnational capitalism that mainly consists of the “liberal” Lockean heartland and Hobbesian “contender” state-society complexes. To us, that sort of conception towards the current issues of global political economy and international relations make possible to conduct a historical materialist account of the analysis. Finally, the fouth section focuses on the intense and ongoing struggles among the social forces in Turkey by using transnational rivalries framework. Those struggles are taking place simultaneously among distinct fractions of the dominant capitalist class on the one hand; and among dominant, subordinate and state classes, on the other.
Keywords: Transnational rivalries, transnational capitalist class, Lockean heartland, contender state-society complexes, state class
"
KURUMSAL İKTİSAT (der. Eyüp Özveren), İmge Kitabevi Yayınları, s.45-92, 2007
Bu çalışmanın amacı, Kurumsal İktisat olgusunu, geleneksel ve güncel niteliklerini göz önünde bul... more Bu çalışmanın amacı, Kurumsal İktisat olgusunu, geleneksel ve güncel niteliklerini göz önünde bulundurarak tanımaktır. Bu noktada, öncelikle önde gelen Thorstein Veblen, John R. Commons ve Clarence E. Ayres gibi isimler bağlamında, Asıl Kurumsal İktisat (Original Institutional Economics) okulunun klasik iktisat kuramına yönelik eleştirileri ve bu eleştirilerin dayandığı temeller üzerinde durulacaktır. Bu çabamız, Yeni ve Eski Kurumsal İktisat yaklaşımlarının nerelerde koşutluk gösterdiğini ve hangi noktalarda birbirinden ayrıldığını görmemizi kolaylaştıracaktır. Bundan sonra, Yeni Kurumsal İktisat’ın (New Institutional Economics) Ronald H. Coase, Oliver E. Williamson ve Douglass North gibi önemli temsilcilerinin, özellikle mikroiktisadın alt konularından birisi olarak firma teorisine ve iktisadi gelişme gibi makroiktisadi konularda yaptıkları katkılar üzerinde durulacaktır. Önceleri, İşlem Maliyetleri İktisadı (Transaction Cost Economics), “yönetişim yapıları” (governance structures), “pozitif dışsallıklar,” “sınırlı akılcılık” (bounded rationality ), “mülkiyet hakları” v.b. kavramların akademik çevrelerde giderek daha fazla tartışılmasını sağlayan bu akımın, günümüze gelindiğinde makro ölçekli iktisat politikalarının belirlenmesinde, ne derece etkili olabildiklerinin
ipuçlarına ulaşmaya çalışacağız.
Siyaset ve Toplum, 2005
Makalenin Künyesi: Siyaset ve Toplum, (Sayı 3), 2005, s.126-152 1. GĐRĐŞ
Uploads
Papers by Mehmet Gürsan Şenalp
Anahtar Kelimeler: Küresel Kapitalizm, Askerileşmiş Birikim, Soykırım, İsrail, Filistin
Global Capitalism, Israeli Colonialism, and the Palestinian Resistance Against Apartheid
Abstract
The discussion in this article stems from the idea that there is a pressing need for analyses that address the genocide in Palestine – beyond the victimhood frameworks of identitarian politics – within the context of the present-day functioning of global capitalism, the structural dimensions of state violence, and the possibilities of collective resistance. The question the article seeks to answer is this: Why has the violence of colonial settlement, waves of ethnic cleansing, and apartheid imposed on Palestinians for seventy-five years now escalated into genocide? In this context, we argue, first, that what is happening in Gaza cannot be understood in isolation from the deep crises of global capitalism, which even transnational capitalist elites cannot remain indifferent to. Israel's policy of annihilation towards Gaza is, in one sense, part of the ethno-nationalist struggle waged by the “Jewish state” against elements it perceives as threats to its own existence. However, in another sense, this new form of violence, positioned at the center of global geopolitical restructuring, should be seen as a real-time “alarm bell” for the millions who are being increasingly pushed into the ranks of the “surplus-humanity.” Big tech monopolies have secured a central position within the military-industrial-academic-security complex, creating new profit areas through AI-based surveillance systems, algorithmic data processing techniques, and urban warfare/destruction practices. This process is consistent with both militarized accumulation and accumulation by repression dynamics; for while mass surveillance and control mechanisms are being built on a global scale, urban spaces are being transformed into arenas of capital accumulation through direct violence..
Keywords: Global Capitalism, Militarized Accumulation, Genocide, Israel, Palestine
Capitalism underwent a fundamental transformation starting with the late 19th and early 20th centuries. There was a rapid movement of the rural population towards the big cities, the emergence of new urban middle-classes, large-scale migration, the decline of small-scale enterprises in favor of giant corporations and monopolies. While the capital accumulation processes were institutionalized within the large joint stock companies, the U.S. was emerging as a great power in world politics. This period represents a crucial turning point in the history of the U.S., which has rapidly transformed into the world's largest industrial power, in many respects. For one thing, the oil and railroad industries and famous business tycoons like John D. Rockefeller and Cornelius Vanderbilt – 'robber barons' as Veblen put it – were products of this era. Being the homeland of mass production inevitably made the U.S. the homeland of giant companies. The merger processes were first seen in the railways, and with the spread of mass production, shifted to the manufacturing industry.
With marginalism and neoclassical theory, economists would find a framework that tried to understand and radically defend this new situation. Accompanying theory went hand in hand with discourses about the virtues of free competition and self-regulating markets in creating wealth and class harmony. This new discourse was static, deductive, axiomatic and based on universal laws supposedly valid in all societies, regardless of their peculiarities. By the late 1870s, however, political distinctions at the level of discourse began to rise. While a large group of economists thought that the centralization of economic power brought about by uncontrolled and unregulated economic growth did not harm the republican foundations of the American society, a second group, small but heterogeneous, believed that economic growth should be achieved through effective government interventions. It was in such an environment that academic economists in the U.S. were drawn into the debate between the neoclassical orthodoxy and the 'Institutionalist School' that challenged them. The Marxists of the day were not a part of this contention because the ideas of Marx and his followers were not yet known or poorly understood (or perhaps found frightening). Nevertheless, the view that institutionalism should not be ignored was widespread among Marxist economists, who believed that both analyses were converging on certain points. It should be noted, however, that institutionalism, characterized as a group influenced by Veblen's radical/critical ideas, was never destined to be a subject to absolute obscuration by being practically 'ignored', just in the case of Marx and his ideas. According to Veblen, private property, firm, competition, market and similar institutions were the collective, settled 'habits of thought' that emerged in the historical process. Therefore, being neglected by the mainstream theories until that day, these institutions could not be considered separately from economics. This point was central to Veblen's 'evolutionary' and 'genetic' approach against the ahistorical, static analyzes of the neoclassical economists. After all, for Veblen, the neoclassical theory – to use his own phrase – was basically nothing but inserting the concept of 'marginal utility' into the classical political economy of Smith, Ricardo and Mill.
This study’s starting point is the actual relevance of Thorstein Veblen's critique of capitalist society, which came to the fore at the beginning of the last century. In other words, if Veblen were alive, I believe, he would not have taken a different angle towards the vested interests of the robber barons and the conspicuous leisure of our time, other than he did in his time. Let alone praising their evolutionary superiority, Veblen would probably continue his fierce condemnation to the predatory behaviors of the present-day captains of finance and enterprise, whose actions are deliberately sabotaging our material and technical evolution. After all, it is impossible to argue that in the U.S. or anywhere else the predatory instincts have weakened, the peaceful and constructive motives of the instinct of workmanship have prevailed, and the pecuniary culture and morality of the idleness have been replaced by different virtues. Presently, such phenomena as admiration for predatory skills, submission to the dominance hierarchy, and replacement of knowledge with myth and ritual are much more powerful and widespread than Veblen observed in the past. Such predatory practices and institutions as financialization, real estate speculation, tax havens, shadow banking, price inflation, extreme competition, credit manipulations, counterfeiting, sabotage of production, vilification of neighbors, the sanctification of business people, the glorification of salesmanship, and last but not least, the conspicuous consumption and conspicuous waste continue to be the indispensable elements of capitalist society. Therefore, it is not surprising that some critical economists and social scientists have always been influenced by Veblen's institutionalist/evolutionary economics. Indeed, ever-expanding international literature has long been developed on the contemporary relevance of Veblen’s ideas.
This study focuses on the last quarter of the 1800s, known as the Gilded Age in the U.S., and the first half of the 20th century, namely the Progressive Era and New Deal years. In doing so, the paper first nails down the relations among some leading figures of the American institutionalists with the German Historical School and the American School of Political Economy (or American School) during the Gilded Age. It has been widely accepted that the former group was heavily influenced by the latter schools. As is known, institutionalism was able to challenge the hegemony of neoclassical economics throughout the Gilded Age and the following Progressive Era, gaining important positions in the economics departments of American universities. Thus, the first two sections of this study focus on the so-called 'American', 'original' and 'radical' aspects of institutionalism. The main concern here is to understand how could Institutional/Evolutionary Economics, chiefly represented by Veblen’s biting satirical writings and radical critique of American capitalism that mostly mocked the lavish lifestyles of the nouveau riche of the day, be seen as powerful as neoclassical theory, and constituted a kind of 'orthodoxy' position in a country like the U.S. In seeking answers to this question, I focus on such a period of time during which the principal figures of American Institutionalism had made their appearance. The rest of the paper focuses on three distinct moments through which American Institutionalism was formed and became influential: (1) the influence of the German Historical School through Germany-trained ‘new generation’ of economists, (2) the contributions of the American School with their protectionist/nationalist doctrines, which was long forgotten by the mid-20th century. I attempt to address the direct relationship between institutionalism’s culmination into a mainstream position in the U.S. (at least for a while) and the protectionist critique developed throughout the 19th century against the Ricardian/Malthusian classical political economy, and its laissez-faire doctrine. My discussion also aims to address (3) the social class origins and characteristics of institutionalism by trying to identify the key social class interests that it served or was appealed to. Hence, I contend that American institutionalism can be interpreted as "left-managerialism". The vast literature on the so-called 'Managerial Revolution', which pointed to the rise of a new 'managerial class' in the private and public sectors during the 1920s and 30s in the U.S., is of crucial importance for the present paper. I argue that the American institutionalists of the day were the 'organic intellectuals,' representing the progressive elements of this newly rising class in the New Deal. It was this organic relationship that was behind the success of institutionalism in the U.S.
Keywords: Transnational rivalries, transnational capitalist class, Lockean heartland, contender state-society complexes, state class
"
ipuçlarına ulaşmaya çalışacağız.