On Daron Acemoğlu and the Nobel: Either they don't know economic history, or...

Daron Acemoğlu has won the Nobel Prize in Economics along with two of his colleagues with whom he has collaborated. I congratulate him. However, as someone who has written two books on the economic history of the Ottoman Empire and Turkey, and as someone who wholeheartedly embraces Atatürk's principles and revolutions, I must also voice my objections.

The work of Prof. Dr. Daron Acemoğlu, Prof. Dr. Simon Johnson, and Prof. Dr. James A. Robinson on "how institutions are formed and their impact on prosperity" was announced as the justification for the award. The thesis they emphasize and put forward in the books "Why Nations Fail" and "The Narrow Corridor," which Daron Acemoğlu and Simon Johnson co-authored, is summarized as follows:

What increases the prosperity of countries in the long run? They speak of a democratic structure that reflects segments of society, which they define as inclusive institutions. When they speak of extractive institutions, they refer to top-down, state-heavy approaches in a country and the exploitation that results from them. Furthermore, they emphasize the importance of technology and education for human capital.

These approaches have recently become generally accepted by most economists. Many economists point to the decay and collapse of state institutions in Turkey, especially during the AKP era, and state that no measures taken in the economy will work without reforms regarding the judiciary and the separation of powers.

The existence of democratic institutions is a necessary element for economic development and a fairer distribution under the conditions of our time. But there is a subject on which we differ from, and even oppose, Daron Acemoğlu and his colleagues.

The fact that these friends explain enrichment and prosperity growth solely through inclusive institutions is very unfortunate in terms of economic history, the history of world wars, and the history of capital accumulation and imperialism under capitalism. It is as if there is an effort to say things that are generally accepted as true while hiding the reality.

In particular, the history of how capital accumulation was formed behind the enrichment of the US, UK, and Western economies—the feudalism and serfs in agriculture, the slaves brought from Africa for US and European capital, the looting of Latin America, Africa, the Ottoman Empire, and the Middle East, and the exploitation of countries by imperialism through wars, occupations, and the economic order it established—is completely absent. After reading these friends' books, I got the impression that they are acting more like PR agency copywriters for the imperialist world, the IMF, the World Bank, and NATO, rather than maintaining the stance of an economist.

On one hand, you hold up the democracy and legal structure in the US and UK as an example... On the other hand, you do not mention how the US-led forces brought "democracy" to Iraq and Libya... Writing economic history without ever mentioning the blood and exploitation order behind capital accumulation is, of course, an achievement in its own right.

QUOTES FROM THE NARROW CORRIDOR

Especially after their assessments regarding the founding phase of the Republic of Turkey in the book "The Narrow Corridor" (pp. 486-490), which Daron Acemoğlu and James Robinson co-authored, I can only make two evaluations regarding these friends.

Either they have no knowledge of Ottoman and Turkish economic history.

Or they are under the influence of imperialism's hostility toward Atatürk and are attacking Atatürk and the Enlightenment Revolutions of the Republic. As is well known, although the US and the Western world appreciate Atatürk, they also harbor hatred toward him. More than 100 years later, there are two things that imperialism cannot stomach. One is the tearing up of the Sèvres map after the War of Independence and the establishment of an independent Republic of Turkey with the Treaty of Lausanne... The second is that this new revolutionary Republic, which had no capital accumulation or wealth and, on the contrary, paid off the Ottoman debts, began to industrialize and develop economically with its own resources, and began to write an economic success story on its own feet. They see this second point as more dangerous than the tearing up of Sèvres because of its potential to serve as an example to exploited countries. Indeed, as a counter-revolution, imperialism's first attacks on Turkey's industrialization and education drive began in the 1945s, after the death of Gazi Mustafa Kemal Atatürk.

I am quoting from the book "The Narrow Corridor":

"The Republic of Turkey, founded in 1923 with the victory of the forces led by Mustafa Kemal, who would later take the name Atatürk, continued the playing style of the Committee of Union and Progress in many respects."

If this sentence is not pure ignorance from start to finish, how can it be explained? Mustafa Kemal Pasha's revolutionary spirit has been cast aside, and he has been labeled as a Unionist, a group he was once a member of but was not active in. They equate Atatürk with Enver Pasha, Talat Pasha, and Cemal Pasha.

Ignorance and malice have been mixed. Let's continue...

"Under the leadership of the army and bureaucracy (business circles and others were included only as peripheral elements of this coalition), the path was open for more reform and state-building, but only for a despotic style of state formation. The center of power was now Atatürk's CHP. The CHP modernized the economy and society, but brought unchecked power and economic wealth for its leaders and allies."

The last sentence is a very despicable expression that does not suit a scientist at all. Atatürk's move to modernize the economy and society brought unchecked economic wealth for himself, for the leader. Let alone Atatürk, there is not the slightest evidence that the prime ministers or ministers who served in that period became wealthy. Who is he comparing the great cadre that made that revolution to? Scientific integrity requires speaking with documents, not slandering. Moreover, we are talking about a leader who, when he had the power and strength to say "I am not founding a Republic, I am the new Sultan" after the great war, declared the Republic with the principle "Sovereignty belongs unconditionally to the nation" and carried out his revolutions.

He says "leadership of the army and bureaucracy", he says "business circles were left on the periphery."

My dear, what kind of economic history are you writing? Do you not know about the industrial inventory in the industrial heritage that the Republic of Turkey inherited from the Ottomans? A total of 282 companies, mostly flour mills, tanneries, and weaving. The total number of workers is 14,060...

There is not only the state in Atatürk's economic and industrialization policies. There is also the private sector. It hasn't even been a month. İş Bankası invited Daron Acemoğlu to give a speech on its 100th Anniversary. Acemoğlu and Robinson say in their books, "there is a despotic state, there are no business circles."

Europe's land regime, the US's land regime, and the Ottoman land regime are completely different. I provided the industrial inventory in the paragraph above. In the Ottoman Empire, there is foreign capital that holds capitulations. Imperialist countries are exploiting the Ottoman Empire to the core. On one hand, the land regime, and on the other, the capitulations granted to foreign companies by the Dynasty (the Palace) to provide income for itself, prevented capital accumulation from forming in the Ottoman Empire.

It was during this period, in 1924, that İş Bankası was established upon the proposal of Gazi Mustafa Kemal Pasha and with the money saved from taxes and donations for the War of Independence (not by gaining economic benefits as you shamelessly slander). Perhaps the current managers of İş Bankası, who invited Daron Acemoğlu for its 100th anniversary, do not know or may have forgotten, let us remind them. The sole reason for the establishment of İş Bankası was the financing of the private sector. For the Atatürk era, what kind of despotic state and private sector exclusion claim is this?

In 1927, the Law for the Encouragement of Industry was enacted. In 1930, the Industry Congress was convened with representatives from all chambers of commerce and industry. Everything was done for the encouragement of the private sector and industry. But the private sector did not have enough capital accumulation, nor did it have the knowledge. The power of the private sector was not enough, nor was its stature, for Turkey's industrialization.

AS IF THE OTTOMAN STATE WAS GOVERNED BY DEMOCRACY

In all your books and articles, you say inclusive institutions, you say education. You slander Atatürk. You say "he established a despotic state and economic management."

You would think that Mustafa Kemal Pasha took over a democratic state of law and a free society of free individuals aware of their democratic rights from the Ottoman State, which was ruled by a sultanate...

The Republic of Turkey was founded on a religious agricultural empire by winning a war of independence on lands occupied by imperialist countries.

Instead of a nation, there was an ummah; instead of free individuals with equal rights in the state, there were subjects of the sultan.

The primary goal of the Republic and the Enlightenment Revolutions was to transform from an ummah to a nation consciousness, and to ensure the transformation from subjects to free individuals. This could only happen with an education drive in a society where the literacy rate was around 8 percent. You talk about education and human capital, but while the War of Independence was still ongoing in July 1921, while enemy soldiers were in Polatlı, Gazi Mustafa Kemal Pasha convened the Education Congress. Not with such a top-down approach. With the approach you call inclusive institutions. He gathered as many teachers as there were, men and women, and asked them to prepare the education program for the new era.

IS THE ECONOMY CONGRESS TOP-DOWN OR INCLUSIVE?

You say top-down. My dear, are you also unaware of the Turkey Economy Congress (February 17 - March 4, 1923) that gathered in İzmir while the Lausanne negotiations were ongoing, during the break in negotiations, before the Republic was even founded after the war was won? The goal of an "Inclusive Economic Program" that emerged as a result of days of discussions with the working class, farmer class, industrialist class, and merchant class coming from all four corners of Turkey... To be inclusive, did the representatives of imperialist states and their privileged companies have to participate?

THE "I WISH THE GREEKS HAD WON" MENTALITY...

There is even a paragraph in the book... The jealousy of European civilizations regarding women's rights, and the "I wish the Greeks had won" mentality regarding efforts to reach contemporary civilization...

"Although some reform practices such as the liberation and empowerment of women, the modernization of the bureaucracy, and the support of industrialization were important steps in terms of creating state capacity and bringing some freedoms that did not exist before for many segments of society, these did not aim to put Turkey into the corridor."

For those who don't know, let us remind them. When they say "putting into the corridor," they are talking about a democracy and understanding of law under the guidance of the imperialist plan proposed by these economist friends... Well, what was the purpose of liberating women and society, dear Nobel-winning economists? Is it in scientific ethics to throw mud and step back without explaining this?

And the "I wish the Greeks had won" mentality...

"Many reforms such as the transition to the Latin alphabet, the clothing revolution, and the restructuring of religious institutions were carried out without consulting society and were forcibly imposed. Those who resisted these reforms, for example, those who insisted on wearing a fez instead of a Western-style hat, were prosecuted and in some cases executed."

Exactly the mouth of "Fez-wearing Kadir" who says "I wish the Greeks had won." Moreover, Nobel-winning scientists... Why was İskilipli Atıf executed? Because he resisted wearing a hat, or because he collaborated with the British and committed treason?

Or Sheikh Said... Did he start a rebellion with religious feelings, or as a pawn within the plan of British Imperialism to ensure that Mosul and Kirkuk remained outside the borders of the Republic of Turkey before the Mosul-Kirkuk negotiations?

While building a secular country, I think the claim of being top-down in the restructuring of religious institutions is not a very innocent expression, and even contradicts your beliefs. Especially recently, you have statements that you are very uncomfortable with the AKP's emphasis on religious education and bringing religious institutions to the forefront. Clearly, you are confused. As an economist, you are starting to think sensitively about religious education and education.

But afterwards... I predict this. Political Islam is not a Muslim movement. Political Islam is a joint project of British-US imperialism aimed at destroying the Secular Republic by using the Islamic religion and Muslims. One does not need to be a Muslim to defend Political Islam.

As for the alphabet revolution... Again, exactly the mouth of a Political Islamist... During the alphabet revolution, about 7 percent of the population could read the old alphabet. And 5 percent of them were in the cities...

IS THE CONGRESSES MOVEMENT NOT INCLUSIVE ENOUGH?

The War of Independence and the founding of the Republic is not just a movement of a rebellious general. The War of Independence and the subsequent founding of the Republic is a process of congresses. In addition to the organization of resistance movements that started in all four corners of the country with the Mudros Armistice, it continues with nearly 40 congresses, including the Maarif Congress where education was shaped, the Economy Congress where the economy was shaped, and the establishment of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey (TBMM). The process of congresses is inclusive, to use the expression you love so much.

Both in the decisions taken during the War of Independence and in all Enlightenment Revolutions, there is a decision of the TBMM Assembly. And let us remind you. There are two basic characters of Atatürk's Enlightenment Revolutions.

Freedom and independence are my character.

Imperialist country spokespeople do not like this concept of independence very much.

The other most important principle is that Atatürk's principles and revolutions are a continuous democratic revolution. It cannot be confined to a dogma. Because the basic principle is, "The truest guide in life is science. If one day my words conflict with science, do not follow me, follow science..."

The theses put forward by Daron Acemoğlu and James Robinson in the book "The Narrow Corridor" for Atatürk and the founding period of the Republic may please Political Islamists very much. But they also heavily criticize the policies implemented by the AKP and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan after 2006. However, I will also write next week about the compliments and praise Daron Acemoğlu made for the 2002-2006 period, especially at the CHP's Second Century Vision meeting.

I will suggest a few books to these Nobel-winning economists for a bit of Ottoman and Turkish Economic History, a bit of colonial history, the phenomenon of imperialism, and the spirit of Atatürk's Revolutions. I know you won't read about imperialism and the capitalist exploitation order from Marxist or Leninist economists. At least you can continue with Thomas Piketty's book "Capital" and its sequel "Capital and Ideology," who are your contemporaries and at least as famous as you. I also suggest books that left a mark on me and come to mind in a flash for Turkey and Atatürk.

Economy in the Mustafa Kemal Era, Great Powers and Turkey... Prof. Dr. Bilsay Kuruç... A unique study for the history of both Turkey and capitalism and imperialism...

History of the Turkish Revolution, Prof. Dr. Suna Kili

Atatürk, The Evolution of the Founding Philosophy, Prof. Dr. Zafer Toprak...

Counter-Revolution 1945-1950, Prof. Dr. Çetin Yetkin

Economic History of Turkey 1908-2015, Prof. Dr. Korkut Boratav.

Facing Our History, Prof. Dr. Emre Kongar

Gazi Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and the Construction of the Republican Economy, Dr. Serdar Şahinkaya

Atatürk Era Economy, Prof. Dr. Duran Bülbül

And let's not be too modest. My own book, Turkey's Factory Settings for the Twenty-First Century / Counter-Revolution in the Economy...