Turkish (Izmir) Economics Congress - An Independent Economic Model Unique to the Turkish Nation

Turkish (Izmir) Economic Congress - 1923,

Mehmet Öge 2021-05-19 22:39

Decisions were made on issues affecting all four sectors, agriculture and industry, trade organizations, workers' rights, education and health, capital accumulation and financial structuring, mining, forestry, transportation, foreign exchange and stock markets, customs, protectionism and incentives decisions that contradicted the spirit of liberalism .

It should be understood that the development path followed at the congress and in subsequent implementations was an independent economic model unique to the Turkish nation; one that allowed for private enterprise but was not capitalist, emphasized statism but was not socialist, and permitted foreign capital only in a measured way, provided it complied with national rules. Between February 17 and March 4, 1923, an economic congress was held in İzmir. 1135 delegates representing industrialists, workers, merchants, and farmers from all regions of Turkey participated. Decisions were made concerning issues affecting all four sectors – agricultural and industrial problems, commercial organizations, workers' rights, education and health, capital accumulation and financial structuring, mining, forestry, transportation, foreign exchange and stock markets, customs, protectionism and incentives – decisions that contradicted the spirit of liberalism . These decisions, totaling 288 articles, were submitted to the government. They were implemented as regular programs and became the fundamental state policy during Kemalism's 15-year rule until 1938. There are many misconceptions, distortions, and patriotic misconceptions from various academic and intellectual circles regarding the nature of the Congress : * That the Republican cadre was not actually statist, * That statism began under pressure from the 1929 crisis , * That liberal policies were pursued willingly until 1929 , * That Atatürk spoke tolerantly of foreign capital in his opening speech at the Congress , * That the First Assembly, which granted the Chester concession to an imperialist, was not actually anti-imperialist , * That the Congress was urgently initiated with liberal messages when the Lausanne negotiations were interrupted … These liberal distortions have been voiced many times to this day. Those who are unaware of the historical conditions of the early 20th century deliberately judge that period from a present-day perspective, poisoning the minds of our nation's citizens. However, during the implementation process of the revolution, "liberalism" had run its course, and monopolism had become dominant. In contrast, capital accumulation did not occur in Turkey, industrial production did not begin, and worker and employer classes did not emerge. Therefore, liberalism could not be a method of development. The "Customs Privileges," which were maintained for 5 years as per the agreement from Lausanne and ended in 1929, are perceived as liberal policies. This is a mistake. The Chester Privilege , which was intended to be given to America, was a powerful weapon put forward by our founders against imperialism to eliminate the privileges inherited from the Ottoman Empire, imposed by the British and French, the victors of the First World War. It was a clever attempt to play the West against the West with its own weapons. Indeed, it was canceled on December 18, 1923. To understand that the Privilege Agreement was not a privilege, it is sufficient to read only its articles. It should be known that the path of development followed in the congress and in subsequent applications is an independent economic model unique to the Turkish nation; one that allows for private enterprise but is not capitalist, emphasizes statism but is not socialist, and permits foreign capital only in a measured way, provided it complies with the country's rules. The result is as stated in the final text of the Congress; The establishment of a new political system aimed to prevent foreign interference by designating businesses entirely under domestic capital , denying privileges to companies not legally considered Turkish, barring them from benefiting from incentives given to Turkish companies , preventing them from entering into any contracts with the government, prohibiting monopolistic formations , preventing the export of abundantly grown domestic products as raw materials without processing , abolishing the tithe tax, etc. These points clearly demonstrate the desire to prevent foreign capital from forming monopolies and exploiting resources while remaining within the country's laws. This approach is clearly opposed to liberalism . What is unnatural is this: to define the founding figures as economically liberal while politically anti-imperialist is contrary to the nature of things. This is not understanding Mustafa Kemal, but rather confusion.

Mehmet Öge 2021-05-19 22:39 Sources: - Metin AYDOĞAN, A LIFE DEDICATED TO THE COUNTRY - Atatürk and the Turkish Revolution, pp. 267-328 - N. İlter Ertuğrul, Footprints of Statism, Telgrafhane Publications - Prof. Dr. Afet İnan, İzmir Economic Congress, Turkish Historical Society Publications, 1989