The Effect of Dependency Theory on Discussions of ‘ Underdevelopment ’ in Turkey

Since the establishment of the Republic regime in 1923, one of the main discussion topics of intellectuals and of people who govern in Turkey has been ‘development’. Even though these two groups mostly had different approaches with respect to development strategy, they had a common belief that development would be achieved through industrialization. In a similar manner, the suggestions for development strategy put forward by different intellectual circles were not homogeneous. Despite all their differences, the clarity of Western paradigms forms the common point of these suggestions. Even the theoretic endeavors that have the claims of authenticity and of being domestic are not free from this effect. Approaches that try to understand and explain underdevelopment in Turkey within the theoretical frame of ‘dependency theory’ constitute one of the most typical examples of this.


Introduction
In this essay, Iaim to examine the approach of Turkish intellectuals to the problematic assessment of underdevelopment and development that has been one of the main discussion topics throughout the history of the Republic, with respect to its relation with 'dependency theory',which was popularized in Turkey after 1960.The essayconsists of three sections.In first chapter,the main claims of dependency theory,w hich are manifested in the context of historical studies in Latin America,will be presented with respect to their criticisms of existing progress/development strategies.E vent hough dependency theory was effective in 1960s, it is predicable that the theses (about underdevelopment,d ependency and developmentstrategies) of the authors of Kadro Dergisi (Kadro [Cadre] Journal)infirst half of 1930s in Turkey foreshadowed the theses of dependency theory in some ways.H ence, the second section will deal with the resemblanceb etween the theses of dependency theory and of Kadro Journal and the possible sources of this resemblance.In the third section, Iw ill discuss the effect of de-pendency theory on the literature of underdevelopment and development in 1960s Turkey.

Ab rief historyo fd ependency theory
During the post World WarI Iera, 'modernization theory'-the theoretical frame of the USA'sp rocess of organizing intersocietal relations-defined the status of being underdeveloped not as the opposite of being developed/advanced, but as the state of not entirelyappearingassuch.Accordingtothis theory,the difference between underdevelopeds ocieties and developed societies was just one phase; underdeveloped societies could alsod evelop if they carefullya nalyzed the phases that developed societies went through and followed the same route.¹This theory,which had held influenceinthe 1950s and 60s, was the subject of staggering criticisms after the late 60s, and lost its being dominant appeal soon thereafter.In this period, hectic criticism was being leveled at the negative sides of capitalist industrialism and development plans, which failed to ensure economic growth.These criticisms, which werei ntenselys alient in the texts first of several Latin Americana uthors, then of social scientists such as Andre Gunder Frank and Paul Baran, uncovered the frame that became known as 'dependency theory' (Altun 2005,p .13).
Dependencytheory,which can also be identified as harmonicallyincreasing the voice of the Third World, became the dominant point of view in manycountries that are identifieda su nderdeveloped-particularlyL atin American countries in the 1970s.The main objective of the theory is to put forth the ideat hat the dependence of Latin Americanc ountries (or more generally, countries identified as underdeveloped) on othercountries cannot be overcome without aqualitative changei nt he former'sm icrostructures and foreign affairs.Dependence indicatest hat certain countries' economies are conditioned by the development and expansion of economics to which they are subjected.Accordingtothe theory,while two or more economies and the relationships of dependence between them and world trade evolve for the benefitofthe dominant ones, the dependent ones can onlye xecute this development as the reflection of others' evolution (Dos Santos 1970,p .2 31).
It can be asserted that the dependency theory,a sb rieflyi dentifieda bove within the scope of its objectivea nd key notion,i sf undamentallyn ourished  W.W.Rostow'sworktitled TheStages of EconomicGrowth (subtitled "ANon-CommunistManifesto")i st he presentation of this belief with the claim of beings cientific.from two different sources: structuralism and Marxism.The approach of structuralism was developed by Raul Prebisch and Celso Furtado.Both philosophers agree thatdefacto economyi snot proficient enough to explain the Latin America truth.Prebisch, who held the presidency between 1950 and 1963o ft he Economic Commission for LatinAmerica (ECLA)subsidiary to United Nations, states that the international division of labor scheme is not valid in its indication that the specific role of LatinAmerica among the order of world economies is producing rawmaterial for industrial centers.Prebisch presents that center and periphery countries don'tb enefit from technical developments equally, and demonstrates with empirical data thatt here was ad ecreasingr atio of end item price to rawmaterials price from the 1860s to the end of World WarII.Thus, he claims that in this relationship, industrialized countries are always the main beneficiaries and international trade always works against underdevelopedc ountries.Briefly, accordingtoPrebisch, who handled the developing problem associatively with international trading,t here is ac lose link between economic progress and foreign trading.This economic situation in which Latin America finds itself can be onlyu nderstood through this relationship (Prebisch 1950,p p. 8 -14).
The main concept of Paul Baran, who is one of the most important representativesofthe Marxist approach that influenced dependency theory,considers the reason for underdevelopmenti sexploitation.Accordingt oB aran underdeveloped countries that provide rawm aterials and investment areas to developed capitalist countries always represent an essential hinterland for the West.That is the exact reason whyt he exploitation of underdevelopedc ountries playeda vital role in the development of capitalism in West.Baran openlyidentifies Western European countries as looters and freebooters when he explains this exploitative relationship.Thise xploitation was hidden behind the curtain of trade while the West stole the world'st reasuref rom everywherew ithin its reach (Baran 1957,p .1 42).In this way, ab ig portion of the economic surplus created in those countries that weree xposed to exploitation was transferred to the West,and the exploited countries' chance to build up an accumulation of capital was takena way( Baran1 957,p p. 142 -143).In this framework, Barans tates that economic development in underdeveloped countries contrasts with advanced capitalist countries' economic interests.In other words, according to Barant he price of capitalist development is the others' not being able to grow (Baran 1957,p .162).
Thanks to the work of Andre Gunder Frank, who shared Baran'sp oint of view on development and underdevelopment topics,dependency theory became popularw orldwide in the 1970s.Frank was impressed by Baran'sc onceptual framework correlating the feature of being developed and underdeveloped directlywith capitalism.According to Frank, the historicaldevelopment of capital-ism as awhole system has ac ritical importance for the comprehension of these facts.In other words, the reasons for these facts of development and underdevelopment should be sought through the dialectic of this total system.When the historical development of capitalismi si nspected in this frame, it can be seen that cases of development and underdevelopment came to light as ar esult of some inner contradictions.The West'sd evelopment and others' underdevelopment throughout historical processesa rose because of the West'se xploitation others and usurping economic surplus values.In other words, capitalism rose on others' devastation.This situation is the first contradiction thatF rank underlines.The second contradiction to which he drew attention is the hierarchical structure on the world scale that capitalism created.He explains this hierarchical structure with metropolis and satellitec oncepts, and links the development of the metropolis to its withdrawingo ft he economic surplus from satellites and using it for its own development.A saresult, satellites can'tu se theireconomic surplus for their own developmenta nd hence remain underdeveloped.Frank didn'tl imit this analysis of metropolis-satellitet oi nternational relations-he says thatcapitalism embeds this contradiction into each satellite'sinternal economya nd hence as imilar polarization is alsoc reated within the satellite ( Frank 1966,p p. 17-31).
Dependencyt heory,w hich takes its shape and main theses from its aforementioned importantr epresentatives, develops am ethodo fa nalysis that plots broader external factors and the international capitalist system against the progress perspective,which links the reasons for underdevelopment to internal, specific conditions.Itdraws attention to the imperialist relations between countries, asymmetrical relations between classes and unequalt rading relations.D ependency theory was effective in the 1960s and 1970s, especiallyinthird worldcountries defined as underdeveloped, and deeplya ffected the analyses put forward by intellectuals in those countries in the context of subject matters like dependency on imperialism, problems of developmenta nd the reasons for underdevelopment.
In this context,d ependency theory was also effective in Turkey as an account of the global capitalist system, and as ac hallenget ot hats ystem, or at least an endeavor of changingt he balance of power within it.I nt he 1960s, the theory led the searches by various Turkish intellectuals for as trategyb y which to understand theircountry'seconomic and social structure,and to overcome underdevelopment.B ut even before the 1960s-in fact,a lreadya tt he beginning of 1930s-agroup of intellectuals who had started to publish the Kadro Journal,a ssertedt heses very similar to dependency theory on subject matters like the development of capitalism, development,u nderdevelopmenta nd dependency on imperialism.In the following chapter,the similarities and differen-ces between the theses of dependency theory and thoseasserted in Kadro Journal will be discussed.

Discussionso fi mperialism, dependencyt heory and KadroJ ournal ²
The modernRepublic of Turkey was established in 1923 after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.One of the main problems facing the new government,which retained no economic legacyfrom the Ottoman one, was how economic development would takep lace.When the effects of the Great Depression-which manifested before even 10 years had passed since the establishment of modern Turkey-added to the existing economic problems, and the problem of economic development became the most important discussion topic of the intelligentsia and the people who governed.While trying to construct an ew ideological frame for the Turkish revolution accordingt ot he genuine conditions of the era, ag roup of intellectuals who started to publish Kadro Journal in the first half of the 1930s emphasized the need for an ew developments trategya nd alleged authentic and extensive opinionsa bout this matter.T heir theoretic frame didn'tjust include Turkey,and they discussed the facts that had universal aspects-such as national liberation movements, the crisis of 1929,c apitalism, colonialism, dependency on imperialism and the historicalreasons for underdevelopment-with respect to their endeavors of determining Turkey'sp osition within the international system.It is thus predicable that thereare critical resemblances between their theses and those of dependency theory.
While atotaloverlapping of these two doctrines is beside the point,theirdelivered perspectiveso nt he subjects of dependency on imperialism, reasons for underdevelopment, progress of capitalism and the exploiter-exploited contrast  KadroJ ournal was published between 1932-1934 by an intellectual group whose founding members were ŞevketS üreyyaA ydemir, İsmail Hüsrev Tökin, Vedat Nedim Tör,B urhan Asaf Belgeand YakupKadri Karaosmanoğlu.Apart from Karaosmanoğlu, the mentality of the group's members was significantlyi nfluencedb yM arxism.The Journal,w hich was published in the times when discussions of development and statism werem ost intensive,d idn'tj ust join the ideological and economic discussions, but also undertook as its agenda to give Turkish revolution atheoretical frame by interpretingit.Kadro was shut down by Atatürk, whodidn'tlean towardany idea of modernization other than his own.Hence KadroJ ournal passed into history as aconcrete example in which the pathological relation between Turkish intellectual and state can be traced.Forf urther information about KadroJ ournal,s ee: Türkeş 1998, pp. 92 -119;T ürkeş 1999,p p. 47-68.are all analogous to one another.All these facts are the cornerstoneso fthe theoretic frame of the Kadro movement.Inits totality,this theoretic frame considers each fact as takenonthe basis of its causal relation with the other.The international aspect of this approach-which can also be seen as am acro theoretical endeavor-is built on the qualitative differences and contradictions between industrialized countries and non-industrialized ones.In this contradiction, defined by Burhan AsafBelge³ as the relation of metropolis-exploited, non-industrialization/underdevelopment of some countries relates to exploitation by Western imperialism, just as in dependency theory (Belge 1934,p .3 8).At the center of the doctrine'sn ationala spect weret he national independence wars.Kadro claimed to offer the scientific explanation of all national independence wars, including the Turkish one.In this context,its authors claimed thatthe theory of revolution in Turkey hadn'tb een established, and that for the revolution to reach success required that the objective acts of this movement must be known and its ideologycreated.Accordingt oŞevket Süreyya Aydemir,⁴ who was the lead ideologist of Kadro,T urkish revolution was an ational independence movement,a nd national independence movementswerethe main decisive progresses of twentieth century (Aydemir 1932, pp. 6 -12).The future of both the Turkish revolution and the international order was bound to the scientific explanation of these movements.This is the main object and claim of the Kadro movement.
The authors of Kadro used historical materialism as amethodwhile building such an assertive and extensive theory,a nd brought it into connection with Marxist theory.But it must be said that this connection is alimited one.The theoretic authenticity of the authors of Kadro becomes evidentatthis point.According to Kadro,eventhough the historical materialism based on the class struggle was functional for understanding Western European societies in nineteenth century,i ti si nsufficient for understanding national liberation wars.Hence, historical materialism is taken as am ethod independent from Marxist theory.E ven though this approach doesn'tm esh with the main principles of Marxist theory, this did not concern the authors of Kadro.Besides, this is not the onlyp oint on which they differ from Marxist theory.E vent hough they accepted that Marz had made the most thorough analyses of capitalism (Belge 1932, p. 29), they nevertheless criticized thosea nalyses.T hey contended that Marx was wrongt os ay that capitalista ccumulation occurred by means of exploitation of the workingclass.The Kadro authors instead primarilybase the development of capitalism upon colonialism (Tökin 1934c, p. 17-21;Aydemir 1933,p.5-10).In other words, accumulation of capital is based upon the exploitation of other countries before the exploitation of the immediate producer,w ho turned into the wageworker.In this process, capitalist accumulation took place in Europe beginning with the exploration of America in fifteenthc entury (Aydemir 1933, pp. 5 -10).This emphasized precedence of colonialism with respect to the development of capitalism is the second main point shared by the theses of Kadro and dependency theory.A ccordingly, the development of capitalism didn'tc ause interclass contradiction to become universalized, as Marx claimed, but instead caused colonialism to locate itself across the world, and the contradiction between exploitedc ountries and exploiter countries to become universalized.So accordingt ot he Kadro authors, the national independence movements of the twentieth centurye mergeda saresulto ft his contradiction.
As can be seen, the Kadro authors adopted ad ialectical approach when explaining historicalp rogress;b ut on the otherh and, they construct their theory on the axis of their discussions-implicit or explicit-of Marx.I nt his context, they claim thatt he contradiction between exploited and exploiter countries (which they determine as the decisive elementoftwentieth century) wouldn'tresolve with class struggle, as Marx had alleged.The Kadro authorsr eplacet he class struggle-ak ey concept of Marxist theory-with national independence wars (Aydemir 1932, pp. 7-12;Belge 1934a,pp. 28).In developing an alternative approach to Marx with regardt oe xplaining historicalp rogress,they again foreshadowed dependency theory.T he unequald istribution of modern technology that emergedw orldwide with industrial revolution is one of the main points that the Kadro authorsu nderlined, as would dependency theory threed ecades later.Accordingtothe Kadro authors, unequal distribution of modern technology changed the structure of production and international tradership, after which the economies of non-industrial countries began to be transferred to the metropolises of Europe.This process not onlyhindered the progress of non-industrialized countries,but also began the process of exploitation (Tökin 1932, pp. 19 -32;Belge1 933, pp. 22-28).
Aydemir emphasized that for this unequal structure to be destroyed, 'the relationso fd ependency' between industrialized and non-industrialized countries should first be destroyed (Aydemir 2003,pp. 43).Accordingtothe Kadro authors, this unequal structure can be made to disappear by establishing moderntechniques in countries that succeed in theirnational independence wars(rather than by class struggle within the capitalist system), and the main contradictions that emerge at the international level can thus be resolved.⁵The suggestion of the Kadro authorsfor establishingmodern techniquesinthese countries is clear: instead of the chaotic production structure based on the privateenterprise system of capitalism, aplanneddevelopment model in which the government is the engine should be adopted as adevelopment strategythat won'tcause anyclassdifferentiations or class struggle.Moreclearly,they suggested adevelopment strategy that wasn'tc apitalist.B ut it should be mentioned that it was not socialism either.A mong the Kadro authors, İsmail Hüsrev Tökin,⁶ who evinced the most advanced analyses of class structure in Turkey,clearlym entions that as ocialist development model can'tb ea pplied to Turkey because it didn'th aveadeveloped workingc lass like those in the West (Tökin 1934a, pp. 34-37;T ökin 1934b,p p. 20 -26).Another Kadro author,V edat Nedim Tör,⁷ took thingso ne  They also mention that the 1929 economical crisis created ag ood opportunity for non-industrialized countries like Turkey:i tp romptedi ndustrialized countries to undersell their companies,the purchase of which could help Turkey to makeamovetobecome industrialized.According to MustafaT ürkeş,t he Kadro authors expressed these theses thirty years in advance of dependencyt heory (Türkeş 2001b, pp. 464-476). İsmail Hüsrev Tökin (1902Tökin ( -1994)), whow as ac hild of am iddle class family, had graduated from an Austrian high school in Istanbul.In 1922, he decided to studyinMoscow with ascholarship grantedbythe Embassy of the Soviet Union in Turkey,and enrolledinthe Communist University of the Toilers of the East.There he met with Marxist concepts like historical materialism, capital and surplus value, and with the works of Marx, Lenin and Buharin.After graduating, he stayedi nM oscow until 1926 and continued his education in economics (Tökin 1990;T ürkeş 2001a). Vedat Nedim Tör (1897-1985) graduated fromG alatasarayH ighS chool in 1916 and went to Germanytostudyeconomics.In1922, he wroteaPhD dissertation titled Turkey,Being Subjected to Imperialism.Tör mentions in his memoirs that he met with the works of Marx, Engels,Lenin, Kautsky and Sombart during his time in Berlin.
step further,claiming thatT urkey would build aclassless society by overcoming the capitalist and socialist experiences( without living these experiences), and stating that history refutes Marx (Tör 1933,p .24).If we remember thatd ependency theory sawsocialism as its development model, it should be noted thatthis is the most essentialt heoretical point on which the Kadro authors and the 'dependency school' differ.
With respect to this endeavor,the Kadro authors, who wereultimatelytrying to createthe ideologyofthe Turkish revolution thattook place after the national war of independence,b uilt an extensive and complicated theory around how Turkey would develop away from being an underdevelopedc ountry dependent on imperialism, and how the economic development would be established.The Kadro movement can be seen as an endeavort ou nderstand the world system and Turkey'sp lace in it; for them, dependency on imperialism as ac ritical factor in the matter of development constituted the central problem of an extensive and systematic theory for the first time in Turkey.I nt his context,i tc an be claimed that the Kadro authors alleged in the 1930s rather similar theses to those of the dependency school (which appearedin1960s), with regard to subjects like the progress of capitalism, colonialism, underdevelopment,unequaldistribution of modern technology,m etropolis-exploited contradiction and dependency on imperialism.⁸In the 1930s, the Kadro authors contributed new topics of discussion to development literature,e speciallyi nT urkey.Their ideological approach became as ourcef or understanding socialism in various underdeveloped countries in that particulare ra.I nt he 1960s, this ideologyf ound its counterpart in Turkey in the Yön hareketi ['Yön movement'], lead by Doğan Avcıoğlu.In the following chapter,t he effects of dependency theory in Turkey between 1960 and 1980 will be discussed, placing the Yön movement at the center of this discussion.

An endeavor of macrot heoryt oo vercome underdevelopment: The Yön movement
In the 1960s, even though almost half acentury had passed since the foundation of modern Turkey,i ts development still didn'tm easure up.Underdevelopment and the problem of how to develop werestill the most important discussion top- The main reason for these theoretical similarities can be shown to be that both the Kadro authors and those of the dependencys chool read and were influenced by the same intellectual sources, such as Marx, Engels,L enin,B uharin and Luxemburg.
ics occupyingbothsocial scientists and those who govern.This topic'scentrality was of course related to more than just the condition of Turkey'sd evelopment not measuring up.In the 1960s, the global rising of the left wing found its counterpart in Turkey,and the political and financial dependency on West-especially on the USA-began to be questioned radically.⁹This questioning also touched on the huge social transformation occurringi nT urkey duringt hese years.Since the 1950s, industrialization and urbanization in Turkey had been rapidlyg rowing,a nd in parallel to this, contradictions between social classes (which are peculiar to modern capitalism) weres harpening,a nd unfairness in distribution of income was increasing.All these developments had turned Turkey into an unusual arena for social and political struggle.In these conditions,especiallysubjects like development,a pportionment and economic order,underdevelopment, imperialism and dependency set the agenda in the social sciences.
In the 1960's, dependency theory presented ac onvenientf rame for Turkish intellectuals who weretrying to explain in details these matters that set Turkey's intellectual agenda.These effects can be clearlyseen acting on the authors of the Yön Dergisi [Yön Journal],¹⁰ alsoknown as the 'Yön movement' in Turkish social science circles.In his magnum opus titled Türkiye'nin Düzeni¹¹ [Order of Turkey], Doğan Avcıoğlu,¹² who was one of the founders of the movement,makes connec- In the 1960s,one of the most important features of the Turkish economyw as its dependency on foreign capital.But it must be said that this dependencym et the needs of the consumer goods industry (Bulutoğlu 1970,p .162). The Yön Journal,p ublished weeklyb etween 20 December 1961a nd 30 June 1967, is seen as one of the most importanti ntellectual movements.T he Yön Journal,p ublished articles about Turkey'se conomical, social and political progress,c overingt wo hundred years of progress from the seventeenth century to mid-1967.Amongi ts authors wide-ranging interests, it can be said that topics liket he historical reasonso fu nderdevelopment,d evelopment strategies,t hird world countries,dependencyoni mperialism and socialism in Turkey stand out.F or further information on Yön Journal,s ee: Özdemir 1986. Türkiye'nin Düzeni [TheO rder of Turkey]i ncited reactions to its handlingofe conomical, social and political subject matters.Published in 1968, it was apopular work that corresponds to the searchfor acommon left wingthoughtamong young generations until the end of the 1970s.The work, which reached its 13 th printingw ithin 10 years, argumentatively examines the historical roots of Turkey'sunderdevelopment and its dependencyonimperialism, and offers arapid, non-capitalist,n ationalist-revolutionist development model by which Turkey might overcome this dependency. Doğan Avcıoğlu (1926 -1983), after studyingp olitical sciences and economics in France, returned to Turkey in 1955 and worked as ar esearch assistant in the Public Administration Institutefor Turkey and Middle East,which was founded based on atechnical assistance agreement between Turkey and the United Nations.H ew rote for dissident media organs when the Democratic Party was in power, and participated in the group commissioned to preparethe 1961con-tions between underdevelopment and dependency on imperialism, referringt o the works of Furtado and Baran, and presents analyses thatc orrespond to the theses of dependency theory.I nt his context,A vcıoğlu, who defines Turkey as ac ountry under the oppression of imperialism, links the growingd ifference (in progress) between Turkey and the West to ac ouple of external historical events.The West,with its geographical explorations connected to colonialist pillage, expedited its accumulation of capital, and with the driving forceo ft he class that made this accumulation possible, the pre-capitalisto rder was dissolveda nd merchant capitalism (developedw ith in thato rder)g avew ay to industrial capitalism.Avcıoğlu stated thatt he balance of power between East and West went in the West'sf avor,a nd mentions that Turkey was affectedb y this process: roles had changed in the world system, Turkey had lost its limited supervision over international tradership and the structure of commerce within Europe had shifted ( Avcıoğlu 1969, pp. 105 -106).He highlights the trading deal signed in England in 1838 as turning Turkey into Europe'sopen market and raw material store, and thus preventing development,which is onlyp ossible if the economymoves along its own path (Avcıoğlu 1968, pp. 50 -53).AccordingtoA vcıoğlu, if Turkey-as one of the most developed countries in its heyday-hadn't come under the oppression of imperialism, it possessed the features thatc ould have enabled it to initiate industrial capitalismb efore Western societiesd id (cf.Baran1 957,.But Turkish society stumbled, restrained by the West, and never had the chance to develop set against aW estern capitalism entering the imperial stage; and so Turkey created as emi-colonized order dependent on European imperialism.Thus, Avcıoğlu clearlystates that Turkey is not an underdeveloped country but ac ountryw hose developmentw as hinderedb yi mperialism (Avcıoğlu 1968, p. 106).
In the 1960s, the relation between dependency on imperialism and development propounded by intellectuals in Yön Journal overlappedwith the theses put forward by dependency theory.I nh is efforts to enhance the perspective on dependency and underdevelopment,A vcıoğlu especiallyused Baran's ThePolitical Economyo fG rowth.Baran'si dentification of economic surplus as one of the most importantelements determining underdevelopment also has critical importance in Avcıoğlu'swork.Avcıoğlu states that even though the crofter,the sharecropper and the agricultural worker werethe main creators of national revenue, they were entitled to consume av ery small portion of what they produce.The stitution.He was the lead author of Yön Journal and one of the most influential intellectual personalities of the era.He passionatelydefended the idea of asociallyand financiallyindependent Turkey and the principle of anti-imperialism-not just in his writings for Yön Journal,b ut throughout his life (Macar 2001,p p. 162-169).
Discussions of 'Underdevelopment' in Turkey biggerportion of the economic surplus went to the proprietors, usurers and middlemen.On this point,A vcıoğlu especiallyp ointed towards the Rûma nd Armenian minorityg roups who exported Anatolian farmers' products.Just likep roprietors and usurers,t hose Rûms and Armenians (Avcıoğlu defines them as compradors) also used the economic surplus they gainedb yt heir mediation for luxury consumption rather than for investment.A ccordingt oA vcıoğlu, these groups wasted the main sources of economy, thus obstructingthe development,and werethe weak collaborators in the coalition of conservativepowers in cooperation with imperialism.The strongc ollaborator of this coalition was the industrial bourgeoisie.The industrial classr ising in Turkey,a sd istinct from the one in Western societies, didn'th avet he ability to playaprogressive role in development.Onthe contrary,itwas in alliance with the abovementioned undevelopedc lasso ft he pre-capitalist order,w hich refused the changeo fo rder.Henceacoalition of conservative dominant classes consisting of industrialists, usurers,s quires and comprador minority groups was detected as the prevailing power of the Turkish economy ( Avcıoğlu 1968, pp. 402-412).
Avcıoğlu'sanalyses of imperialism'sc lass structure is rounded out by ad efinition of the international aspects of dependency relations.Developed capitalist countries (the USAf oremost among them)a nd their companies weret he strong allies of this coalition that defendedt he statusq uo.Fort his coalition, the USA, as well as being asourceofenrichment through foreign capital and partnership, was as afety fuse against revolutionist tendencies.S uch alliancesa imed at protectingt he status quo werec onstructed within all the undeveloped countries within the USA'so rbit.A vcıoğlu, referringt ot he works of Furtado, mentions Mexico as one of the most brilliant examples of the American model of development,and emphasizes thateventhough there wereforeign investmentsand millions of dollars of capital transferred to this country,d evelopmentw as still not achieved and Mexico remained an underdevelopedc ountry (Avcıoğlu 1968, pp. 466 -473).HenceA vcıoğlu states that because of such dependency relations, which appear botho nt he international and the domestic level, enterprises of capitalist development weren'ta nd never will be successful-in Turkey or in anyo ther country.
Avcıoğlu'sv iews, summarized above, can actually be seen as af rame of an analysis that emphasizes the historical perspective.Heexplains Turkey'sunderdevelopment in terms of dependency on imperialism, while emphasizing the relationsbetween domestic and foreign structures.A vcıoğlu clarifies the nationalist-revolutionist model of development that he believes should be adopted for development to be achieved.Accordingtothis model, the capitalistdevelopment model should first be abandoned and new colonialist dependency relations (in which capitalist countries are dominant) should be terminated such thatt heir bases within the country would fail.Thus, the sources that are wasted in the hands of the coalition of conservative powers that is dominant in tradership and industry should rapidlyb en ationalized.While agriculture should lean on huge cooperative farms, non-agricultural land should be subjectedtopublic economic organizations (Avcıoğlu 1968, pp. 477-492).The details of his explanation also clearlyr eveal Avcıoğlu'su nderstandingo fd evelopment: by development, what is meant is industrialization.Accordingt ot his nationalist-revolutionist development model, to be applied by aleadingrevolutionist party,abig portion of the financial sources should be used for establishing heavy industries.T urkey would thus develop, overcoming its dependency on imperialist countries by achieving economic independence within 15 -20 years, and would reach the level of contemporarycivilizations that Atatürk-the founderofthe Republic-had determined as the main goal (Avcıoğlu 1968, p. 508).
The relation between underdevelopment and dependency alsoh as central importance for other authors of Yön Journal.Accordingt oE rolU lubelen, imperialism makes countries that have yett oc ompletet heir industrialization fall into its clutches by means of tradership and financial aid,a nd exploits them in both material and nonmaterial ways.Thise xploitation is not just limited to the transfer of economic surplus from underdevelopedp eripheries to advanced capitalist countries;italso includes the transfer of aqualified work force, specialized in areas like medicinea nd engineering.T he mission of the comprador class in the aforementioned dependency relations in underdeveloped countries is also an importanta nd decisive element in Ulubelen'sa nalysis (Ulubelen 1966,p .12).
İdris Küçükömer explains the reasons for underdevelopment in terms of international tradership.After World WarI,prices of industrial products rose to the detrimentofraw material'sprices,and the limits of foreign trading went in favor of developed countries.Thus, world foreign trade turned into am echanism for robbingt he undevelopedc ountries that were trying to become industrialized by exporting rawm aterial.Under these circumstances,t he wayo fd evelopment that waso ffered to undeveloped countries was,a ccordingt oK üçükömer,b oth utopic and to theird etriment.H ee mphasizes that firstly, the dependency relations present in foreign trading should be annihilated.After that,h es tates that an endeavorofindustrialization with its trust placed in the domestic market is necessary for Turkey to develop (Küçükömer 1964,p .10).
Fellow Yön author Fethi Naci, who drew attention for his aggressived iscourse, statest hat imperialism-which he defines as as pecial, historical phase of capitalism and as am onopolist capitalism-turned Turkey into a semi-colonized country (Naci 1965b, p. 16).Accordingt oN aci,t his process had started with the trading deal signed in 1838 in England, which opened the wide Ottoman markettoW estern European capitalism.The Ottoman Empire was weakened politicallyand economically, leadingtoits collapse after World WarI, after which Western imperialist countries virtuallyo ccupied Anatolia.Even though the Turkish national war of independence that beganw ith this occupation had an anti-imperialist character,T urkey became ac ountry dependent on imperialist powers once again after World WarI I ( Naci 1965c, pp. 8 -9).Imperialism was exploiting Turkey'ss ources and by transferring economic surplus,i t was blocking the accumulation of capital.Also, by putting up the prices for the goods sold to Turkey,a nd cutting down the prices of agricultural products boughtfrom Turkey,itwas robbingT urkey and forcingittotrade onlywith capitalist countries (Naci1 965a, p. 5).
Accordingt oNaci, after World WarIIeconomical foreign aid from capitalist countries to underdeveloped ones wereanew form of imperialism.Naci, who states that it seemed impossiblefor Turkey to overcome its dependency on imperialist powers with the existing foreign politics and method of economya tt he time of his writing (Naci 1964a, p. 10), concludes that the onlya vailable way to achievet rue independence is through ad evelopment that isn'tc apitalist, and that trusts in its own resources rather than in foreign investmentsa nd aids.He explains that the first precautions to be taken are the nationalization of foreign monopolies, developing the public sector,p lannede conomy, and industrial and agricultural reforms (Naci 1965d, pp. 8 -9).However,N aci doesn't forgett om ention thath ed oesn'tm ean socialism by ad evelopment thati s ' not capitalist'-because socialism is onlyp ossiblet hrough achieving true independence in underdevelopedc ountries,b yd emocracy becomingf unctional in society,a nd by the rapid spreadingo fa dvanced methods of production that are not inherentlyc apitalist.T hus, the development model that Naci suggests seeks to botho vercome dependency and to clear the wayl eadingt os ocialism (Naci 1964b, p. 6).
Niyazi Berkes emphasizes that examining the processo ft he collapse of the Ottoman Empire should reveal the reasons for Turkey'sunderdevelopment,moving the search'sf rame back to the seventeenth century (Berkes 1965, p. 12).He connects the underdevelopment of Turkey with the rise of modern capitalism in the West.I nt his context,O ttoman history is defined as ap rocess of decline and dissolution under the effects of Western development.Likeh is Yön colleagues, Berkes considers the 1838 Trade Agreement as abreakingpoint.The agreement led to the dissolution of manyT urkish industrial branches, foremost among them the cotton industry,and hence to Turkey'sdependence on imperialist nations (Berkes1 970, pp.370 -372).A ccordingt oBerkes,the underdevelopment of Turkey can'tbeexplainedawayasanidiosyncrasy of Eastern society,as alleged by modernization theories, but must instead be understood as intercon-nected with dependency (Berkes 1966,pp. 12-13).Therefore, he defines imperialism as one of the fundamental determinants that restrained social and economic progress in Turkey,r endering those endeavors inefficient or detrimental (Berkes 1963b, pp. 7-8).Consequently, he states that Turkey must eliminate reactionist factors in the country that collaborate with imperialist powers,a nd must abolish its dependency on those powers in international relations,i n order to actualize social and economic progress (Berkes 1963c, pp. 8 -9).

Conclusion
As stated above, the subject of development has been of fundamental concern to Turkish intellectuals since the constitution of Turkey.A ssociatingT urkey'su nderdevelopment with imperialism was not an unfamiliar perspective,a se vidence by Kadro Journal'sa uthors.However,i nt he 1950s,d evelopment discussions in Turkey came under the influenceo fm odernization theory,t he framework of which was established by W. W. Rostow.This paradigmatic effect can be observedc learlyi nt he social sciences,especiallyi nd iscussions of agriculturea nd urban planning.The left-wingi ntellectuals gathered in Yön Journal criticized this linear/unilateralperspective for its emphasis on the effects and importance of inner dynamics for development,i nc ontrastt od ependency theory.They reinitialized discussion of underdevelopment and imperialism with their synthesiso fv arious approaches into the form of dependency theory.A vcıoğlu -the most important theoretician of the Yön movement-reproduced the arguments from both neo-Marxistand structuralist factions pursuant to Turkey'sunderdevelopment.T he other Yön authors mentioned abovew erea lso diligent agents of as imilar endeavoro fs ynthesis.Thereforei tc an be stated that the essentialr eferences of their domain of thoughtc ome from Western paradigms, even though they claim their analyses to be peculiart oT urkey.
The modalities regarding this phenomenon of rejectingu nderdevelopment as as tate of nature( explained by modernization theoreticians as simply a 'delay')h aveh eld an important place in treatises on left-wingd evelopmenti n 1960s Turkey.N evertheless,i ti sa ne xacting task to find in this bodyo fw ork anyr adical investigation of development itself; analysis of the causes, factors and historical backgrounds of underdevelopment or progression take center stage.There is notable attitude of agreement among the writers of the Kadro and especiallyofYön journalson the subjectofdevelopment and on the explanation this phenomenon( industrialization); wheret hey differ is on the proposed methodst oa chievethe determined objectives.From this point on, development gains ac ontested character and thus anyi nterrogation of the subject becomes impossible.This situation, which can be called an epistemological imprudence, resulted in the unquestioned acceptanceofthe hypotheses related to the subject of development.Yön Journal authors in particular clearlye xpress that their means of development is through industrialization itself.
As detailed above, underdevelopedo ro ppressed Turkey was considered to be able to reach the level of contemporaryW estern civilizations aimed at by Atatürk onlybased on its degree of independence from imperialism through industrialization.At this point,the paradoxical structure of all these debates referring to dependency theory becomes more evident.The theories that are put forward are so contradictory:o nt he one hand, the 'delay' argument of modernization theory is being criticized; while on the other hand,t he competition metaphor, the traditional-modern duality and at ypologyo fs ocieties sorted according to their development levels within al inear course of history are preserved intact.
Then in all these analyses,just as in dependency theory,what is considered undeveloped is still being defined accordingt ot he West.The main cornerstone of these acts of definition is the perception of the phases of development and social formation undergone by the West.Inother words, in these analyses, aEurocentric approach dominates.I ts eems to have escaped these authors' notice that even characterizingo ne country as developeda nd another as underdeveloped means positioning them within the very sameparadigm as the modernization theory that they criticized, and accepting the same presuppositions of linearity/unidirectionality.H encei tc an be said thatb oth Kadro and Yön authors, while they wereproducing ideas about Turkey'seconomic and political dependency,d espite their claim of authenticity,w ere dependent on Western concepts and paradigms,and so they reproducedthe West'seconomic and political domination at an epistemological level.Moreover,itistrue that this epistemological dominance is alsoo ne of the main problems of the Turkish intellectual world today.So, it should not be forgottent hatd ependency is not justa ne conomic and political problem, but reallybegins when we need others' concepts and categorieso fa nalysis to comprehend and to produce solutions for our own society and social problems.