Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-h4f6x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-29T23:09:56.066Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Turkish Agrarian Debate: New Arguments and Old Scores

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 July 2015

Zülküf Aydιn
Zülküf Aydιn*
Affiliation:
Yarmouk University, Jordan, Department of Anthropology
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The characterization of agrarian structures in contemporary underdeveloped countries has been haunting social scientists for a long time. As in Latin America and India, from the late sixties onwards a strong controversy emerged among Marxists in Turkey concerning the question of why capitalism had not transformed rural structures in Turkey (J. Harris, 1982; R. L. Harris, 1978; Aydın 1986). The question of capitalist transformation of the countryside occupied the minds of classical Marxist thinkers like Kautsky, Lenin, Luxembourg at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century.

Information

Type
Review Article
Information
New Perspectives on Turkey , Volume 1 , Fall 1987 , pp. 81 - 108
Copyright
Copyright © New Perspectives on Turkey 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Amin, Samir. 1976. Unequal Development. New York: Monthly Review Press.Google Scholar
Amin, Samir. 1977. Imperialism and Unequal Development. Sussex: Harvester Press.Google Scholar
Amin, Samir. and Vergopoulos, K. 1977. La Question Paysanne et le Capitalisme. Paris: Anthropos.Google Scholar
Aydın, Zülküf. 1986. Underdevelopment and Rural Structures in Southeastern Turkey: the Household Economy in Gιşgιş and Kalhana. London: Ithaca Press.Google Scholar
Banaji, Jairus. 1977. “Modes of Production in a Materialist Conception of History.” Capital and Class, 3.Google Scholar
Bernstein, Henry. 1976. “Underdevelopment and the Law of Value — A Critique of Kay.” Review of African Political Economy, 6.Google Scholar
Bernstein, Henry. 1977. “Notes on Capital and Peasantry.” Review of African Political Economy, 10.Google Scholar
Bernstein, Henry. 1979. “African Peasantries: A Theoretical Framework,” The Journal of Peasant Studies, 6 (4).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernstein, Henry. 1985. “Agrarian Crisis in Africa and Neo-Classical Populism”, paper presented to the Postgraduate Seminar on Peasants, Institute of Commonwealth Studies, University of London.Google Scholar
Boratav, Korkut. 1969a. Gelir Dağilimi. İstanbul: Gerçek Yayιnevi.Google Scholar
Boratav, Korkut. 1969b. “Tanmda Feodal Üretim İlişkileri, Feodal Kalιntilar ve Basit Meta Üretimi,” Emek, 6, June.Google Scholar
Boratav, Korkut. 1970. “Tanmda Üretim İlişkileri Üzerine,” Proleter Devrimci Aydinlιk, 15, January.Google Scholar
Boratav, Korkut. 1980. Tarιmsal Yapilar ve Kapitalizm. Ankara: Ankara Universitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Yaymlan.Google Scholar
Chayanov, A.V. 1966. The Theory of Peasant Economy. Homewood, Πlinois: Irwin.Google Scholar
Çulhaoğlu, Metin. 1970. “Bir Kör Gidiş,” Emek, 26, April.Google Scholar
de Janvry, Alain. 1981. The Agrarian Question and Reformism in Latin America. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ennew, Judith, et al. 1977. “The Peasantry as an Economic Category,” The Journal of Peasant Studies, 4 (4).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erdost, Muzaffer. 1969a. “Türkiye'de Feodalizm Var Mi?” Türk Solu, 80.Google Scholar
Erdost, Muzaffer. 1969b. Türkiye Sosyalizmi ve Sosyalizm. Ankara: Sol Yaymlan.Google Scholar
Erdost, Muzaffer. 1969c. “Doğu Anadolu'da Hayvancιlιğιn Feodal Niteliği,” Aydinlik Sosyalist Dergi, 8, June.Google Scholar
Erdost, Muzaffer. 1969d. “Türkiye Tarιminda Hakim Üretim Πişkisi Üzerine,” Aydinlik Sosyalist Dergi, 13, November.Google Scholar
Erdost, Muzaffer. 1970. “Yeni Oportünizmin Eleştirisi,” Aydinlik Sosyalist Dergi, 5, March.Google Scholar
Erdost, Muzaffer. 1984. Kapitalizm ve Tarim. Ankara: Onur Yayιnlarι.Google Scholar
Feder, Ernst. 1975. “The New Penetration of Agriculture of the Underdeveloped Countries by the Industrial Nations and their Multinational Concerns,” Institute of Latin American Studies, University of Glasgow. Occasional Papers No.19.Google Scholar
Feder, Ernst. 1976. “How Agribusiness Operates in Underdeveloped Agriculture: Harvard Business School Myths and Reality,” Development and Change, 7.Google Scholar
Feder, Ernst. 1977a. “MacNamara's Little Green Revolution,” Economic and Political Weekly, 3, April.Google Scholar
Feder, Ernst. 1977b. “The World Bank Program for the Self-Liquidation of the Third World Peasantry,” The Journal of Peasant Studies, 6 (1).Google Scholar
Friedmann, Harriet. 1978a. “Simple Commodity Production and Wage Labour in the American Plains,” The Journal of Peasant Studies, 3(3).Google Scholar
Friedmann, Harriet. 1978b. “World Market, State and Family Farm: Social Basis of Household Production in the Era of Wage Labour”. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 20 (4).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedmann, Harriet. 1981. “The Family Farm in Advanced Capitalism: Outline of a Theory of Simple Commodity Production in Agriculture.” University of Toronto. Unpublished.Google Scholar
Galli, R. 1978. “Rural Development as Social Control: International Agencies and Class Struggle in the Colombian Countryside,” Latin American Perspectives, 5 (4).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glavanis, Kathy and Glavanis, Pandeli. 1986. “Historical Materialism or Marxist Hagiography? A Response to a Positivist Critique,” Current Sociology, 34 (2), Summer.Google Scholar
Harris, John. 1982. “The Mode of Production Controversy: Themes and Problems of the Debate,” in Livingstone, Ian (ed.), Approaches to Development Studies Essays in Honour of Athole Mackintosh. Aldershot: Gower.Google Scholar
Harris, R. L. 1978. “Marxism and Agrarian Question,” Latin American Perspectives, 5 (4).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(Kautsky, Karl). 1976. “Summary of Selected Parts of Kautsky's Agrarian Question,” by Banaji, Jairus, Economy and Society. 5 (1).Google Scholar
Kay, Geoffrey. 1975. Development and Underdevelopment. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Kutlay, M. 1970a. “Geri Kalmιş Kapitalizm,” Emek, 3 (2), July.Google Scholar
Kutlay, M. 1970b. “Türkiye'de Geriliğin Gelişmesi,” Emek, 3(3), August.Google Scholar
Marx, Karl. 1850. Fransa'da Sιnιf Mücadeleleri. Ankara: Sol Yayinlarι.Google Scholar
Marx, Karl. 1852. “Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte,” in Marx, Karl and Engels, Friedrich. Selected Works. Vol. 1, London: Lawrence Wishart.Google Scholar
Marx, Karl. 1867. Capital. Vol. 1. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing Press.Google Scholar
Marx, Karl. 1894. Capital. Vol. 3. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing Press.Google Scholar
Meilassoux, Claude. 1972. “From Reproduction to Production,” Economy and Society, 1 (1).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payer, Cheryl. 1982. The World Bank. London: Monthly Review Press.Google Scholar
Rey, Pierre Philippe. 1973. Les Alliances de Classes. Paris: Francois Maspero.Google Scholar
Roseberry, W. 1978. “Peasants as Proletarians,” Critique of Anthropology, 3 (11).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seddon, David and Margulies, Ronnie. 1984. “The Politics of the Agrarian Question in Turkey,” The Journal of Peasant Studies, 11 (3).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selik, Mehmet. 1969. “Türkiye'de Sosyalizm Tartιşmalarι: Milli Demokratik Devrim Fetişizmi, I, II, III,” Emek, Nos. 3, 4 and 5.Google Scholar
Vergopoulos, Kostas. 1978. “Capitalism and Peasant Productivity,” The Journal of Peasant Studies, 5 (4).CrossRefGoogle Scholar