{"id":1200,"date":"2019-03-22T11:45:17","date_gmt":"2019-03-22T08:45:17","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/trockist.net\/?p=1200"},"modified":"2019-03-22T11:45:18","modified_gmt":"2019-03-22T08:45:18","slug":"guney-afrika-altemperyalist-mi-tartismayi-yeniden-sekillendirmek","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/trockist.net\/index.php\/2019\/03\/22\/guney-afrika-altemperyalist-mi-tartismayi-yeniden-sekillendirmek\/","title":{"rendered":"G\u00fcney Afrika (alt)emperyalist mi? Tart\u0131\u015fmay\u0131 yeniden \u015fekillendirmek"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Melanie Samson <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

(\u00c7eviri: Asl\u0131 G\u00f6ymen) <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dakar’da MNET’in me\u015fhur Egoli adl\u0131 pembe dizisini seyredebilir, Maputo’daki Nando’s’da G\u00fcney Afrika \u00fcsul\u00fc peri tavu\u011fu yiyebilir, Harare’deki bir Standart Bank ATM’sinden para \u00e7ekebilir, Bat\u0131 Cape’ten gelen taze Ceres marka meyve sular\u0131n\u0131z\u0131 Lusaka’daki Shoprite’da i\u00e7ebilir ve t\u00fcm bunlar\u0131n hepsini Botswana’dan gelen bir DeBeers elmas\u0131 ser\u00e7e parma\u011f\u0131n\u0131za tak\u0131l\u0131yken yapabilirsiniz. Apartheid sonras\u0131 G\u00fcney Afrika devleti, NEPAD (Afrika i\u00e7in Yeni Ekonomik Ortakl\u0131k)’\u0131n uygulanmas\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flama almak ve onu bir bar\u0131\u015f-simsar\u0131 paltosu, Afrika R\u00f6nesans\u0131’n\u0131n lideri ve k\u0131tan\u0131n sesi addetmek i\u00e7in manevralar yaparken; NEPAD’\u0131nki kadar G\u00fcney Afrika sermayesinin de damgas\u0131 k\u0131tan\u0131n \u00f6tesine ve geni\u015f b\u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcne vuruluyor. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

G\u00fcney Afrika devleti ve onun sermayesi, Afrika’n\u0131n geri kalan\u0131nda bu t\u00fcrden bir temsile sahipken bir\u00e7ok insan\u0131n dilindeki \u201cemperyalizm\u201d s\u00f6zc\u00fc\u011f\u00fc \u015fa\u015f\u0131rt\u0131c\u0131 de\u011fil. G\u00fcney Afrika’n\u0131n k\u0131ta \u00fczerinde b\u00fcy\u00fcyen hegemonyas\u0131n\u0131 \u00e7ok az\u0131 ink\u00e2r ederken, bu geli\u015fmelerin nas\u0131l karakterize edilece\u011fi konusunda akademik ve aktivist \u00e7evreler aras\u0131nda hararetli bir tart\u0131\u015fma var. \u0130zgenin bir ucunda bulunan Ishmael Lesufi (2004, 2006), bunlar\u0131 G\u00fcney Afrika emperyalizminin kan\u0131tlar\u0131 olarak g\u00f6r\u00fcrken, di\u011fer u\u00e7ta bulunan Patrick Bond (2004, 2005, 2006), G\u00fcney Afrika’n\u0131n Amerikan emperyalizminin alt emperyalist bir vekili oldu\u011funu \u00f6ne s\u00fcr\u00fcyor. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Peki, G\u00fcney Afrika’n\u0131n mevcut konjonkt\u00fcrdeki rol\u00fc nedir? Ne yaz\u0131k ki emperyalizm hakk\u0131nda filizlenen Marksist alanyaz\u0131n\u0131, G\u00fcney Afrika tart\u0131\u015fmas\u0131nda s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 bir kavray\u0131\u015f veya k\u0131lavuzluk sunuyor. Emperyalizm \u00fczerine yeni kuramlamalar, Amerikan devletinin temin etti\u011fi ‘himaye ve k\u00fcresel kapitalizmin yeniden \u00fcretimi’nde bulunan g\u00fcncel emperyalizm ile emperyalistler aras\u0131 \u00e7eki\u015fmeler ve di\u011fer topraklar \u00fczerindeki resmi politik kontrol\u00fcn geni\u015flemesiyle i\u015fbirli\u011fi halindeki emperyalizmin \u00f6nceki bi\u00e7imleri aras\u0131ndaki farkl\u0131l\u0131klar\u0131n izini s\u00fcr\u00fcyor. Bu alanyaz\u0131n\u0131ndaki hararetli tart\u0131\u015fma, \u00f6ncelikli olarak devletlerin ilga m\u0131 edildi\u011fi (Hardt ve Negri 2002) yoksa emperyalist s\u00fcre\u00e7te odak ve hatta artan bir role mi sahip oldu\u011fu (Meikins Wood, Panitch and Gindin 2005); veya uluslar\u00f6tesi kapitalist bir s\u0131n\u0131f\u0131n, imparatorlu\u011fun y\u00f6netici g\u00fcc\u00fc olarak m\u0131 ortaya \u00e7\u0131kt\u0131\u011f\u0131 (Sklair 2001, Robinson 2004) veyahut ABD’nin eylemlerinin d\u00fc\u015f\u00fc\u015fe ge\u00e7en hegemonya taraf\u0131ndan m\u0131 (Arrighi 2005, Harvey 2005) ya da \u00fclkenin dinamizmi ve g\u00fcc\u00fc taraf\u0131ndan m\u0131 (Panitch and Gindin 2005) y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fcyle me\u015fgul. \u00dc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc d\u00fcnya \u00fclkelerinin, genel olarak, emperyalist geni\u015flemenin, kontrol\u00fcn nesneleri ve m\u00fclks\u00fczle\u015ftirme yoluyla birikimin mek\u00e2nlar\u0131 olduklar\u0131 d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcl\u00fcr. B\u00f6lgesel g\u00fc\u00e7lerin temsilcili\u011fiyle ili\u015fkili meseleler, k\u0131smen s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 bir ilgi g\u00f6r\u00fcr. \u00d6rne\u011fin, Harvey, Do\u011fu Asya’da (ve Avrupa’da) ‘alt emperyalist’ devletlerin y\u00fckseli\u015fini, bu devletlerin mek\u00e2n-zamansal \u00e7\u0131kmazlar\u0131n\u0131n yol a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 aray\u0131\u015flar\u0131n bir sonucu olarak kaydetse de (Harvey 2005, s. 186); bu devletlerin Amerikan emperyalizmiyle olan ili\u015fkisini kuramla\u015ft\u0131rm\u0131yor. Bu nedenle, G\u00fcney Afrika’n\u0131n rol\u00fc meselesinin \u00fcstesinden gelmek g\u00fcncel emperyal s\u00fcrecin devinimleri hakk\u0131ndaki tart\u0131\u015fman\u0131n ilerletilmesine \u00e7ok \u00f6nemli katk\u0131lar sunacakt\u0131r. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yine de G\u00fcney Afrika’n\u0131n rol\u00fcn\u00fcn nas\u0131l kuramla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131laca\u011f\u0131 sorusu, salt akademinin u\u011fra\u015f\u0131 de\u011fildir. G\u00fcney Afrika’n\u0131n, Amerikan emperyal \u00e7\u0131karlar\u0131 i\u00e7in bir kanal ya da ‘vekil’ [proxy] gibi davranan alt emperyalist bir arac\u0131 olarak g\u00f6r\u00fclmesi gerekti\u011fini \u00f6ne s\u00fcrmek, antiemperyalist m\u00fccadeleye giri\u015fmi\u015f olanlar i\u00e7in bir dizi politik \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131m ifade eder. Onu ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z bir emperyalist g\u00fc\u00e7 olarak de\u011ferlendirmek ise, radikal bir bi\u00e7imde farkl\u0131 hedefler ve eylem bi\u00e7imlerini gerekli k\u0131lar. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bu makale, Bond ve Lesufi’nin emperyalizmi ve alt emperyalizmi kavramsalla\u015ft\u0131rd\u0131klar\u0131 y\u00f6ntemlerin, sorunsal\u0131 sessizli\u011fe ve d\u0131\u015flamalara itti\u011fini ve bunun bir sonucu olarak iki kuramc\u0131n\u0131n da G\u00fcney Afrika’n\u0131n olu\u015fturulmu\u015f ve tart\u0131\u015fmaya a\u00e7\u0131k mevcut rol\u00fc \u00fczerinden, ayr\u0131\u015fm\u0131\u015f toplumsal s\u00fcreci yakalamay\u0131 ba\u015faramad\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6ne s\u00fcrmektedir. Ne tuhaft\u0131r ki, ikisi de, kendilerinin \u00e7izdikleri \u00e7er\u00e7evedeki zay\u0131fl\u0131k ve bo\u015fluklar\u0131 i\u015faret etmek i\u00e7in yararl\u0131 bir ba\u015flang\u0131\u00e7 sa\u011flayan Ruy Mauro Marini’nin Brezilya alt emperyalizmi \u00fczerine ilk kavramsalla\u015ft\u0131rmas\u0131na (1965, 1972) referans vermemektedir. O y\u00fczden bu makale, Marini’yi G\u00fcney Afrika tart\u0131\u015fmas\u0131na yeniden takdim etmeyi ama\u00e7larken; G\u00fcney Afrika’dan \u00e7\u0131kan yak\u0131n zamana ait yaz\u0131lar\u0131n, di\u011fer i\u00e7eriklerin oldu\u011fu gibi, G\u00fcney Afrika’n\u0131n rol\u00fcn\u00fcn kuramsalla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na yeni bir yakla\u015f\u0131m in\u015fa etmeye ba\u015flamak i\u00e7in nas\u0131l resmedilebilece\u011fini tan\u0131mlar. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Makale, emperyalizm ve alt emperyalizmin g\u00fcncel G\u00fcney Afrika tart\u0131\u015fmas\u0131nda kullan\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 y\u00f6ntemlere k\u0131sa bir bak\u0131\u015f\u0131 ve bunlar\u0131n ele\u015ftirisini sunarak ba\u015fl\u0131yor. Ard\u0131ndan Marini’nin kuramlamas\u0131n\u0131n mevcut tart\u0131\u015fman\u0131n kat\u0131l\u0131klar\u0131 ve ayr\u0131mlar\u0131n\u0131n \u00fczerinden nas\u0131l gelebilece\u011fini ara\u015ft\u0131r\u0131yor. Son b\u00f6l\u00fcmdeyse mevcut konjonkt\u00fcrde alt emperyalizmin kuramla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na kat\u0131lmas\u0131 gereken ve ilerideki ara\u015ft\u0131rmalara y\u00f6n verebilecek ilave unsurlar\u0131 tan\u0131ml\u0131yor. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ishmael Lesufi ve G\u00fcney Afrika Emperyalizmi <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lesufi, 2004 y\u0131l\u0131nda Current Sociology’de yay\u0131mlanan makalesinde ve arg\u00fcmanlar\u0131n\u0131n pop\u00fclarize edildi\u011fi, geni\u015fletilmi\u015f 2006 tarihli di\u011fer makalesinde, G\u00fcney Afrika h\u00fck\u00fcmetinin, k\u0131ta \u00e7ap\u0131nda etkin bir tan\u0131t\u0131m\u0131 olan neoliberal kalk\u0131nma plan\u0131 NEPAD’\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131klamaya \u00e7al\u0131\u015f\u0131r. 1994’teki demokratik se\u00e7imlerden sonra G\u00fcney Afrika sermayesinin nihayet di\u011fer Afrika \u00fclkelerinde yat\u0131r\u0131mlar yaparak, kal\u0131c\u0131 a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 birikim krizine \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcm bulmaya \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6ne s\u00fcrer (Lesufi 2004, sf. 814\u2013817, 2006, p. 28). Ona g\u00f6re, NEPAD’\u0131n geli\u015fmesini ve uygulanmas\u0131n\u0131, sermayenin canlanmas\u0131 ve plan\u0131n ‘zaten yolunda olan s\u00fcrecin adeta m\u00fchr\u00fc haline gelmesi’ (Lesufi 2006, s. 25) izlemi\u015ftir. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lesufi, G\u00fcney Afrika devletinin G\u00fcney Afrika sermayesinin ihtiyac\u0131n\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131lama ve me\u015frula\u015ft\u0131rma iste\u011fini, yine kendinin devletin s\u0131n\u0131f temelli do\u011fas\u0131 kuramlamas\u0131na dayanarak a\u00e7\u0131kl\u0131yor. Ona g\u00f6re, G\u00fcney Afrika i\u015f\u00e7i s\u0131n\u0131f\u0131 demokrasiye ge\u00e7i\u015fte b\u00fcy\u00fck yenilgiler ya\u015fad\u0131. Ve bu y\u00fczden, bu d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f\u00fcmle birlikte ‘kapitalist s\u0131n\u0131flar, on y\u0131llarca s\u00fcren m\u00fccadele y\u0131llar\u0131 boyunca ba\u015faramad\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131 elde etmi\u015f oldu. Me\u015fru ve siyahi bir h\u00fck\u00fcmeti kendilerine ait programa ba\u015fkanl\u0131k etmesi i\u00e7in g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na almay\u0131 ba\u015fard\u0131lar’ (Lesufi 2006, s. 19). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lesufi, ‘kalk\u0131nman\u0131n tekellerin egemenli\u011finde oldu\u011fu ve finans kapitalin kendini tesis etti\u011fi kapitalist birikim’ \u015feklindeki Leninist emperyalizm kuram\u0131n\u0131 benimser (Lesufi 2006, s. 33). Lesufi, ‘G\u00fcney Afrika sermayesinin, emperyalizmin Lenin taraf\u0131ndan kavramsalla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lan t\u00fcm asl\u00ee unsurlar\u0131n\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131d\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131’ (Lesufi 2006, s. 37) ve NEPAD’\u0131n G\u00fcney Afrika emperyalizminin bir ifadesi oldu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcrer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ve G\u00fcney Afrika’n\u0131n bir alt emperyal devlet oldu\u011fu y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki sav ile m\u00fccadele eder. Ona g\u00f6re: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Alt emperyalizm fikri, yerini tam olarak, emperyalizmi geli\u015fmi\u015f, geli\u015fmekte olan ve az geli\u015fmi\u015f \u00fclkeler aras\u0131ndaki ekonomik ve politik ili\u015fkiler olarak (hatal\u0131 bir \u015fekilde) g\u00f6ren gelenekte bulur. Bu ba\u011flamda, G\u00fcney Afrika gibi geli\u015fmekte olan \u00fclkeler, geli\u015fmi\u015f \u00fclkelerin geri kalm\u0131\u015f \u00fclkelere eri\u015fimi i\u00e7in birer kanal olarak g\u00f6r\u00fcl\u00fcr. Alt emperyal olarak tan\u0131mlanan \u00fclkeler o zaman emperyalist \u00fclkelere ba\u011f\u0131ml\u0131 olarak tasvir edilir. Bir de ayr\u0131ca emperyalizmin co\u011frafi terimlerle tan\u0131mland\u0131\u011f\u0131 bir anlam\u0131 var, buna g\u00f6re emperyalizm yaln\u0131zca Kuzey’de a\u00e7\u0131\u011fa \u00e7\u0131kabilir ve G\u00fcney’deki her \u015fey kuzeyli canavar\u0131n kurbanlar\u0131d\u0131r… Ayr\u0131ca G\u00fcney Afrika’n\u0131n ABD emperyalizminin komprador devleti rol\u00fc oynad\u0131\u011f\u0131 alg\u0131s\u0131 da bulunmaktad\u0131r. (Lesufi 2006, sf. 34\u201335) <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lesufi, G\u00fcney Afrika’n\u0131n alt emperyalist konumunu hem bu konumun emperyalizmin do\u011fas\u0131n\u0131n yanl\u0131\u015f anla\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131na dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131na inand\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u00e7in, hem de bunun ‘G\u00fcney Afrika gibi devletlerin emperyalizm i\u00e7indeki rol\u00fcn\u00fc aklad\u0131\u011f\u0131’ (Lesufi 2006, s. 25) gerek\u00e7esiyle reddeder. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lesufi, yerli s\u0131n\u0131f g\u00fc\u00e7leri ve ‘G\u00fcney Afrika sermayesi’ne ait oldu\u011funu belirtti\u011fi geni\u015fleme ihtiya\u00e7lar\u0131na yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 vurguyu, teorik \u00e7er\u00e7eveye uygulayarak tart\u0131\u015fmaya \u00f6nemli katk\u0131larda bulunur. Yine de, s\u0131n\u0131f m\u00fccadelesine yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 teorik vurguya ra\u011fmen, i\u015f\u00e7i s\u0131n\u0131f\u0131n\u0131n ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 yenilgilerin ard\u0131ndan, hem devletin hem de kapitalistlerin \u00e7\u0131karlar\u0131nda herhangi bir n\u00fcfuz i\u00e7in g\u00fc\u00e7 sarf etmekten vazge\u00e7ti\u011fi y\u00f6n\u00fcnde ham bir analiz sunar. Bu, \u00f6rg\u00fctl\u00fc eme\u011fin, G\u00fcney Afrika Kom\u00fcnist Partisi’nin ve bug\u00fcnk\u00fc G\u00fcney Afrika’da ortaya \u00e7\u0131kan toplumsal hareketlerin konumu ve g\u00fcc\u00fc \u00fczerine \u00fcst\u00fcnk\u00f6r\u00fc, yanl\u0131\u015f bir tasvirdir. Devlette hi\u00e7bir \u00f6zerklik, iktidardaki ANC’de (Afrika Ulusal Kongresi) herhangi bir yetki yok ya da bu ikisinin herhangi bir \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131 bulunmamaktad\u0131r. Biraz da sorunsal bir bi\u00e7imde, Lesufi’nin hesab\u0131nda, devlet basit\u00e7e tekelci sermayenin isteklerini uygular. Lesufi ne ‘G\u00fcney Afrika sermayesi’ni sorunsalla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131r, ne de anahtar konumundaki DeBeers ve Anglo American to London gibi ‘G\u00fcney Afrikal\u0131’ \u00e7okuluslu \u015firketleri ya da G\u00fcney Afrika’da yabanc\u0131 sermaye bulunmas\u0131n\u0131n onaylanmas\u0131n\u0131 inceler. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dahas\u0131, neoliberalizmin a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 birikim krizine bir cevap olarak bir\u00e7ok \u00fclkeye yerle\u015ftirildi\u011fini not etse de, Amerikan devletinin neoliberalizmin geli\u015findeki kritik rol\u00fcne dahi g\u00f6rmezden gelerek, bunu ‘kapitalistlerin d\u00fcnya genelindeki’ hareketlerine ba\u011flar (Panitch and Gindin 2004, sf. 20\u201323). H\u00fck\u00fcmetin B\u00fcy\u00fcme, \u0130stihdam ve Yeniden Da\u011f\u0131l\u0131m (B\u0130YD) stratejisi, NEPAD ve IMF ile D\u00fcnya Bankas\u0131 politikalar\u0131 aras\u0131ndaki benzerlikleri not etmesine ra\u011fmen, bu kurumlar\u0131n ya da daha genel olarak Amerikan emperyalizminin, G\u00fcney Afrika devletinin politik se\u00e7imlerindeki etkisini g\u00f6z \u00f6n\u00fcnde bulundurmaz. Bu Lesufi’nin klasik Leninist emperyalizm tan\u0131m\u0131n\u0131 muhafaza etmesi ve buna ba\u011fl\u0131 olarak, her emperyalist devlette ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z i\u015fleyen emperyalistler aras\u0131 rekabet kavray\u0131\u015f\u0131yla ilgilidir. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ellen Meikins Wood’un, tarihd\u0131\u015f\u0131 emperyalizm kuramlamalar\u0131n\u0131 benimsemeye kar\u015f\u0131 yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 uyar\u0131ya (2005) kulak asmayan Lesufi, ne Lenin’in yazd\u0131\u011f\u0131 ba\u011flam\u0131 tarihselle\u015ftiriyor, ne de ABD emperyalizminin y\u00fckseli\u015fi ve G\u00fcney Afrika devletinin ’emperyalist’ hareketlerinin bi\u00e7im ve do\u011fas\u0131yla ili\u015fkide olan uluslararas\u0131 politik ekonominin d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f\u00fcm\u00fcndeki \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131mlar\u0131 inceliyor. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Patrick Bond ve Alt Emperyal G\u00fcney Afrika <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Buna kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131k, Bond, ‘alt emperyal G\u00fcney Afrika’ tezinin \u00f6nde gelen savunucusu olarak, ABD emperyalizmi ve G\u00fcney Afrika devletinin b\u00f6lgedeki g\u00fcndemi aras\u0131ndaki ili\u015fkiyi analiz eden bir dizi yay\u0131n \u00e7\u0131kard\u0131 (bkz. Bond 2004, 2005, 2006). Ona g\u00f6re, Afrika altyap\u0131 projelerine yat\u0131r\u0131m ve Cecil Rhodes’un ‘Cape’den Kahire’ye haritay\u0131 Brintanya emperyal k\u0131rm\u0131z\u0131s\u0131na boyama’ giri\u015fimi, Avrupa sermayesinin emperyalistler aras\u0131 \u00e7eki\u015fmenin ilk d\u00f6nemindeki a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 birikimi i\u00e7in \u00f6nemli \u00e7\u0131k\u0131\u015f noktalar\u0131 sa\u011flad\u0131 (Bond 2004, sf. 149\u2013150). Afrika’n\u0131n e\u015fitsiz ve bile\u015fik bir geli\u015fme temelinde ‘ya\u011fmalanmas\u0131’, o d\u00f6nemde \u00e7ok b\u00fcy\u00fck bir rol oynad\u0131 ve bu rol bug\u00fcn de devam ediyor (Bond 2006). Gelgelelim, Bond, emperyalizmin bi\u00e7im ve do\u011fas\u0131nda, bug\u00fcn Amerikan emperyalizminin hegemonyas\u0131yla karakterize edilen anlaml\u0131 bir y\u00f6n de\u011fi\u015ftirmeden bahsediyor. Harvey’i takiben, Bond, ‘\u00e7a\u011fda\u015f emperyalizmin zorunlu olarak, ABD’nin dolayl\u0131, yenis\u00f6m\u00fcrgeci y\u00f6netimine artan ba\u011f\u0131ml\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 olan Afrika gibi \u00e7eper mevzilerde ‘m\u00fclks\u00fczle\u015ftirme yoluyla birikim’ ve neoliberalizmle b\u00fct\u00fcnle\u015fti\u011fini’ \u00f6ne s\u00fcr\u00fcyor (Bond 2006, s. 59). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bond, ticaretin ve finans\u0131n liberalle\u015fmesinin Afrika \u00fcr\u00fcnlerini kuzeyli t\u00fcketim i\u00e7in ucuzlatt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve k\u0131tay\u0131 ‘kriz y\u00f6netiminin k\u00fcresel ortamlar\u0131n\u0131n daha da i\u00e7ine’ (Bond 2005, s. 221) \u00e7ekti\u011fini savunuyor. Bond, Amerikan emperyalizmi ile Afrika aras\u0131nda, ABD birliklerinin k\u0131tada giderek artan mevzilenmeleri, Afrikal\u0131 paral\u0131 asker al\u0131m\u0131, Afrikal\u0131 bir bar\u0131\u015f g\u00fcc\u00fc kurulmas\u0131 i\u00e7in finansman\u0131n artt\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 ve Amerika’n\u0131n emperyal \u00e7\u0131karlar\u0131n\u0131 ilerletmek i\u00e7in Millennium Challenge Account yard\u0131m\u0131na ba\u011fl\u0131 \u015fartlar\u0131 kullanmak da dahil bir\u00e7ok m\u00fchim, arac\u0131s\u0131z taahh\u00fctlerden bahsediyor (Bond 2005). Bond, ayr\u0131ca, IMF ve D\u00fcnya Bankas\u0131’n\u0131n yap\u0131sal uyum politikalar\u0131n\u0131n, neoliberal politikalar\u0131n benimsenmesi, Amerika’n\u0131n emperyalist g\u00fcndemini k\u0131ta genelinde yerine getirilmesi ve Afrikal\u0131 devletlerin m\u00fclks\u00fczle\u015ftirme yoluyla birikimi kolayla\u015ft\u0131rmas\u0131 i\u00e7in nas\u0131l yeniden konumland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 titizlikle detayland\u0131r\u0131yor (Bond 2006). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yine de, Bond tek ba\u015f\u0131na askeri harcamalar\u0131n ABD’nin emperyal g\u00fcndemini g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na alamayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 not ediyor; Millennium Challenge Account yard\u0131m\u0131n\u0131 alabilecek vasfa sahip olan zaten az say\u0131daki \u00fclkelerde, harcamalar\u0131n etkisiz birer emperyal ara\u00e7 oldu\u011funun kan\u0131tland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtiyor (Bond 2005, s. 27). Belki de daha da \u00f6nemlisi, Bond \u015funu savunuyor: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

…B\u00fcy\u00fck \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde kapitalist kriz e\u011filimleri ve mevcut m\u00fclks\u00fczle\u015ftirme yoluyla birikim y\u00f6nelimi sayesinde, emperyalizm ne fayda sa\u011flayabilir ne de Afrika’da aral\u0131ks\u0131z s\u00fcren muhalefeti ba\u015far\u0131yla bask\u0131 alt\u0131na alabilir: \u00f6zellikle ‘devlet ba\u015far\u0131s\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131’ ve ‘disiplinsiz neoliberalizm’ ile dolu Sahra-alt\u0131 Afrika’dakileri (tekrarlanan IMF ayaklanmalar\u0131 ile \u015fahit olundu\u011fu gibi)… ‘Serbest pazar ve serbest politikalar\u0131n’ ideolojik me\u015frula\u015ft\u0131rmas\u0131 bu nedenle yenilenme gerektiriyor. Bunun i\u00e7in, ABD’nin alt emperyalist bir orta\u011fa ihtiyac\u0131 var… (Bond 2005, s. 223) <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bond, ‘y\u00fczs\u00fczl\u00fcklerine’ ra\u011fmen Pretoria (G\u00fcney Afrika devletinin idari y\u00f6netiminin bulundu\u011fu ba\u015fkent, \u00e7n.)’daki politikac\u0131lar\u0131n ideal alt emperyalist ortaklar olduklar\u0131n\u0131n kan\u0131tland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 savunuyor (Bond 2006, s.10). Lesufi ile do\u011frudan z\u0131t bir \u015fekilde, Bond, NEPAD’\u0131n k\u00f6kenini, ‘evyap\u0131m\u0131 Va\u015fington Mutabakat\u0131’na [homegrown Washington Consensus] (Bond 2006, s. 11) ve G\u00fcney Afrika’n\u0131n alt emperyalist rol\u00fcn\u00fcn icras\u0131na duyulan gereksinimde buluyor. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bond, alt emperyalizmin hak sahiplerinin bir hiyerar\u015fisi mi oldu\u011fu ya da zirvede kimin oturdu\u011funa dair \u015funu belirterek hi\u00e7 \u015f\u00fcphe b\u0131rakm\u0131yor: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

…E\u011fer Mbeki (G\u00fcney Afrika’n\u0131n 1999\u20132008 y\u0131llar\u0131 aras\u0131ndaki devlet ba\u015fkan\u0131, \u00e7n.) ve meslekta\u015flar\u0131, NEPAD ve yukar\u0131da bahsedilen di\u011fer t\u00fcm k\u00fcresel-idari g\u00f6revler taraf\u0131ndan sa\u011flanan \u00fcst d\u00fczey pozisyondan faydalan\u0131yorsa da; ger\u00e7ek kazananlar, Afrika’n\u0131n s\u00fcren a\u015f\u0131r\u0131-s\u00f6m\u00fcr\u00fcs\u00fc ve askerile\u015fmesi i\u00e7in G\u00fcney Afrikal\u0131 bir temsilciye gittik\u00e7e daha \u00e7ok ihtiya\u00e7 duyan Va\u015fington ve di\u011fer emperyal merkezlerdeki kimselerdir. (Bond 2005, sf. 232\u2013233) <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bond alt emperyalizmden kimin \u00e7\u0131kar sa\u011flad\u0131\u011f\u0131 konusunda a\u00e7\u0131k olsa da, alt emperyalizm kuramla\u015ft\u0131rmas\u0131n\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131k bir \u015fekilde detayland\u0131rmaz. Bu arada, ona g\u00f6re, klasik kuramc\u0131lar taraf\u0131ndan analiz edilen erken emperyal d\u00f6nemde, emperyal kapasite ‘alt emperyalist s\u00fcre\u00e7 taraf\u0131ndan yeniden \u00fcretilmi\u015ftir’ (Bond 2004, s. 163). Bond ayr\u0131ca G\u00fcney Afrika’n\u0131n apartheid ve apartheid sonras\u0131 d\u00f6nemlerde Kongo Demokratik Cumhuriyeti’ndeki alt emperyalist projelerin devaml\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 da not eder (Bond 2004, s. 165). Emperyalizmin de\u011fi\u015fen do\u011fas\u0131n\u0131 dikkatle detayland\u0131rmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen, Bond, alt emperyalizmin tarihd\u0131\u015f\u0131, de\u011fi\u015fmeyen bir kavramla\u015ft\u0131rmas\u0131n\u0131 sunar. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bond’un analizi, ayr\u0131ca, G\u00fcney Afrika devletinin k\u0131tan\u0131n geri kalan\u0131 ile olan ba\u011f\u0131n\u0131 yaln\u0131zca Pretoria, Va\u015fington ve uluslararas\u0131 kurumlar [IMF vs.] aras\u0131ndaki ili\u015fkilere odaklanarak anla\u015f\u0131labilece\u011fi y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki kendisinin i\u00e7kin varsay\u0131m\u0131 ile de engellenmi\u015ftir. G\u00fcney Afrika sermayesinin k\u0131tadaki sermaye birikiminin s\u00f6m\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc s\u00fcreci \u00fczerinde oynad\u0131\u011f\u0131 rol\u00fcn \u00f6nemini not etmesine ra\u011fmen, Bond alt emperyalizm \u00fczerine metinlerinde, devletin k\u0131ta \u00e7ap\u0131ndaki m\u00fcdahalelerinin k\u00f6klerini yaln\u0131zca ABD ad\u0131na bir ‘vekil’ olarak davranmas\u0131nda bulurken (Bond 2006, s. 104), G\u00fcney Afrika sermayesinin devletle ili\u015fkisini sorgulamaz. Dahas\u0131, G\u00fcney Afrika devleti Bond’un alt emperyalizm tan\u0131m\u0131 \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde kritik bir rol oynasa da, devletin alt emperyalist bir rol oynad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n kan\u0131t\u0131 olarak s\u0131kl\u0131kla belirli politikac\u0131lar\u0131n tav\u0131rlar\u0131na i\u015faret etmi\u015f, bir devlet kuram\u0131 getirmemi\u015ftir. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bond, G\u00fcney Afrika devletinin alt emperyal konumunu desteklemek i\u00e7in temel olarak Pretoria ve Va\u015fington aras\u0131ndaki d\u0131\u015f ili\u015fkilere odaklan\u0131rken, Lesufi (s\u0131n\u0131f m\u00fccadelesi ve toplumsal ili\u015fkileri kapitalist devleti sa\u011flama alma olarak g\u00f6ren teorik varsay\u0131mlar\u0131na ra\u011fmen) devletin, G\u00fcney Afrika ‘tekelci sermayesinin’ farz edilen ihtiya\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131 gideren icraatlar\u0131na bakar; ve bunlar\u0131n, Bond’un aksine, emperyal oldu\u011funu \u00f6ne s\u00fcrer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ruy Mauro Marini ve Brezilya Alt Emperyalizmi <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7as\u0131, Lesufi ve Bond ayr\u0131m\u0131 ve onlar\u0131n sayg\u0131de\u011fer ara\u015ft\u0131rma \u00e7er\u00e7eveleri aras\u0131nda gereken k\u00f6pr\u00fc, toplumsal ili\u015fkiler, d\u0131\u015f ve i\u00e7 etmenlerin kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131kl\u0131 ili\u015fkileri aras\u0131ndaki farklar\u0131 yakalayan kuramsal bir yakla\u015f\u0131m gerektirmektedir. Bu, Simon’\u0131n 1991’de \u00f6ne s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ve do\u011fru bir \u015fekilde belirtti\u011fi gibi Lesufi taraf\u0131ndan reddedilen yap\u0131salc\u0131 yakla\u015f\u0131mlardan daha kullan\u0131\u015fl\u0131 bir alt emperyalizm kavramsalla\u015ft\u0131rmas\u0131 olan, Marini’nin Brezilya alt emperyalizm kuram\u0131d\u0131r (Simon 1991, sf. 23\u201324). 1960’lar\u0131n ortalar\u0131nda ve 1970’lerin ba\u015f\u0131nda yazan Marini, alt emperyalizm kavram\u0131n\u0131, Brezilya’n\u0131n d\u0131\u015f politikas\u0131ndaki d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f\u00fcmleri ve \u00f6zellikle Dominik Cumhuriyet’ine m\u00fcdahale konusunda Brezilya ve ABD i\u015fbirli\u011fini analiz etmek i\u00e7in geli\u015ftirir. Marini’nin tezi bu olgunun tek tek ABD ve Brezilya’ya bakarak ya da yaln\u0131zca i\u00e7 ve d\u0131\u015f etmenlere odaklanarak anla\u015f\u0131lamayaca\u011f\u0131 idi (Marini 1965). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Marini, Amerikan yat\u0131r\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n Brezilya’daki etkisini ara\u015ft\u0131r\u0131r ve bu yat\u0131r\u0131m\u0131n Brezilya d\u0131\u015f politikas\u0131ndaki ve Brezilya sermayesinin ihracat\u0131ndaki izlerini s\u00fcrer. Yazar, Amerikan emperyalizminin Brezilya’y\u0131 toplumsal d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f\u00fcmden tutun, i\u00e7erideki toplumsal ili\u015fkilerine kadar etkiledi\u011fini savunur. Onun analizi Nicos Poulantzas’\u0131n iyi bilinen ve Amerikan emperyalizminin di\u011fer toplumsal bi\u00e7imlerde yeniden \u00fcretimi \u00fczerine olan daha sonraki kuram\u0131n\u0131 bir\u00e7ok a\u00e7\u0131dan \u015fekillendirir (Poulantzas 1974). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Marini dikkatli bir \u015fekilde Brezilya’n\u0131n Amerikan yat\u0131r\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n pasif bir al\u0131c\u0131s\u0131 ya da Amerikan emperyalizminin \u00f6ylesine bir nesnesi olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 vurgular. Ona g\u00f6re, Brezilya burjuvazisiyle b\u00fcy\u00fck toprak sahipleri [latifundists] aras\u0131ndaki s\u0131n\u0131f ittifak\u0131ndan dolay\u0131, Brezilya, bir [sermayenin] ger\u00e7ekle\u015fme krizi ile kar\u015f\u0131la\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131nda, bu krizi \u00e7\u00f6zmek i\u00e7in yeniden da\u011f\u0131l\u0131ma ve \u00fclke i\u00e7i talebe g\u00fcvenemezdi (Marini 1965, s. 23). Bu y\u00fczden, i\u00e7erideki s\u0131n\u0131f ili\u015fkileri, diktat\u00f6rl\u00fck i\u00e7in tek alternatif olarak di\u011fer \u00fclkelere a\u00e7\u0131lma ve end\u00fcstriyel \u00fcr\u00fcnleri ihra\u00e7 etme [stratejisini] dayatt\u0131. Gelgelelim bu durum, Brezilya sanayisinin azgeli\u015fmi\u015flik nedeniyle kendi kendine yapabilecek durumda olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 teknolojik geli\u015fmi\u015flik seviyesinin art\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131 gerektirdi. Bu nedenle, yukar\u0131daki modelin benimsenmesi yabanc\u0131 sermayeye ba\u011fl\u0131yd\u0131. Marini’nin s\u00f6yledi\u011fi gibi: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

E<\/em>mperyalizm, kat\u0131l\u0131m\u0131 kabul etti ama kendi ko\u015fullar\u0131n\u0131 dayatt\u0131. B\u00fcy\u00fck sanayi \u00f6zelle\u015ftirildi; demir gibi hammaddelerin s\u00f6m\u00fcr\u00fcs\u00fc tekelle\u015fti; elektrik da\u011f\u0131t\u0131m\u0131 i\u00e7in planlar uluslararas\u0131 finans arac\u0131lar\u0131ndan \u00f6nemli ba\u011f\u0131\u015flar ald\u0131… Yine de yabanc\u0131 sermaye, geli\u015fmi\u015f uluslara tahsis edilmi\u015f havac\u0131l\u0131k gibi sekt\u00f6rlerin geli\u015fmesini desteklemeyi reddetti. Dahas\u0131, Kuzey Amerika h\u00fck\u00fcmeti Brezilya’n\u0131n n\u00fckleer teknolojide uzmanla\u015fmas\u0131n\u0131 engelledi (Marini 1972, s. 17). <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

B\u00f6ylece yabanc\u0131 sermaye, Brezilya sanayisinin do\u011fas\u0131n\u0131 b\u00fcy\u00fck \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde belirleyip, etkiledi ve onun ihracat-y\u00f6nelimli stratejisinde \u00f6nemli bir rol oynad\u0131. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yabanc\u0131 sermayeyle b\u00fcy\u00fcyen ittifak, d\u0131\u015f politikada daha ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z yakla\u015f\u0131mdan, \u00f6nceki h\u00fck\u00fcmetlerin izledi\u011fi, Brezilya’y\u0131 ABD’ye ‘s\u0131k\u0131ca ba\u011fl\u0131’ bir duruma getiren bir barghana leal ya da sad\u0131k pazarl\u0131\u011fa do\u011fru bir de\u011fi\u015fime neden oldu (Marini 1965, s. 19). Marini, bunun Brezilya d\u0131\u015f politikas\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6nceden belirleyici konumda bulunan ABD’nin iradesini kabul eden bir geri \u00e7ekilmeden ibaret olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n dikkatlice alt\u0131n\u0131 \u00e7iziyor: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bir\u00e7oklar\u0131 i\u00e7in olanlar sadece Brezilya’n\u0131n Va\u015fington’a boyun e\u011fme politikas\u0131na geri d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f\u00fc (\u00f6nceki Quadros y\u00f6netimi s\u0131ras\u0131nda olan buydu) ve Brezilya’n\u0131n tam anlam\u0131yla ABD’nin kolonisine d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015ft\u00fc\u011f\u00fc \u015feklindeydi. Bu do\u011fru de\u011fil. Ger\u00e7ekte burada olan, Brezilya burjuvazisinin Kuzey Amerika emperyalizmiyle olan b\u00fct\u00fcnle\u015fmesini bilin\u00e7li bir \u015fekilde kabul edi\u015finin d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f\u00fcm\u00fcyd\u00fc; Brezilya’n\u0131n olduk\u00e7a mant\u0131kl\u0131 ekonomik ve politik devinimlerinin bir sonucu olan bu d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f\u00fcm\u00fcn Latin Amerika i\u00e7in \u00e7ok a\u011f\u0131r sonu\u00e7lar\u0131 oldu (Marini 1965, s. 12). <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

B\u00f6ylece Marini, Brezilya’n\u0131n Amerikan emperyalizminin \u00e7\u0131karlar\u0131n\u0131n pe\u015fine ka\u00e7\u0131n\u0131lmaz ve otomatik olarak d\u00fc\u015fmedi\u011fini \u00f6ne s\u00fcr\u00fcyor. ABD i\u00e7in sadece bir ‘vekil’ olmaktansa, Brezilya devleti k\u0131ta \u00fczerindeki rol\u00fcn\u00fc, kendi ‘ideolojik tasar\u0131mlar\u0131na’ oldu\u011fu kadar, Brezilya’daki s\u0131n\u0131f m\u00fccadeleleri ve s\u0131n\u0131f i\u015fbirliklerine de dayanarak kendisi i\u015fledi. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bu a\u00e7\u0131dan, Marini, daha sonra Poulantzas ve Miliband aras\u0131ndaki tart\u0131\u015fmada ortaya \u00e7\u0131kan ve (Zirker 1994, s. 115) ‘\u201cdevletin g\u00f6reli \u00f6zerkli\u011fini\u201c vurgulayan devlet merkezli Marksist yakla\u015f\u0131m\u0131 sezmi\u015f g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcyor’. Brezilya diktat\u00f6rl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc taraf\u0131ndan tercih edilen bu dikkate de\u011fer se\u00e7im kendini \u015f\u00f6yle konumland\u0131r\u0131yor: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

E<\/em>mperyalist geni\u015flemenin Latin Amerika’dan yay\u0131laca\u011f\u0131 merkez… Bu (g\u00fcncel g\u00fc\u00e7 ili\u015fkileri \u00e7o\u011funlukla buna yol a\u00e7sa da) Kuzey Amerika’n\u0131n g\u00fcc\u00fcn\u00fc pasif\u00e7e kabul etme meselesi de\u011fil, emperyalist geni\u015fleme ile, bu geni\u015flemede anahtar ulus konumunu \u00fcstlenerek, fiilen i\u015fbirli\u011fine girmeyi tercih etmektir (Marini 1965, sf. 21\u201322). <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Marini, Brezilya diktat\u00f6rl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn ‘alt emperyal’ olu\u015funu bu temelde tart\u0131\u015f\u0131yor. Orjinal makalesinde Marini alt emperyalizmi basit\u00e7e ‘tekellerin ve finans kapitalin kat\u0131na eri\u015fmeyi varsayan ba\u011f\u0131ml\u0131 kapitalizmin bir bi\u00e7imi’ (Marini 1972, s. 15) olarak tan\u0131mlarken, daha sonra \u015funlar\u0131 not ederek bu tan\u0131m\u0131 geni\u015fletmi\u015ftir: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

A<\/em>lt emperyalizm, iki temel bile\u015feni kapsar: bir tarafta, ulusal \u00fcretim aparatlar\u0131n\u0131n d\u00fcnya \u00f6l\u00e7e\u011finde orta halli organik bir bile\u015fimi ve di\u011fer tarafta, yaln\u0131zca emperyalist \u00fcretim sistemine daha b\u00fcy\u00fck eklemlenmeyle de\u011fil, ayn\u0131 zamanda uluslararas\u0131 \u00f6l\u00e7ekteki emperyalizm taraf\u0131ndan uygulanan hegemonya alt\u0131nda da s\u00fcrd\u00fcr\u00fclen g\u00f6rece \u00f6zerk geni\u015flemeci politikalar\u0131n uygulanmas\u0131 (Marini 1978, sf. 34\u201335, Zirker’den al\u0131nt\u0131, 1994, s. 117). <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

B\u00f6ylece Marini’nin form\u00fclasyonu i\u00e7inde alt emperyal bir devlet ne basit bir ‘kanal’ [conduit] ne de Amerikan emperyalizminin ‘vekili’ [proxy]’dir. Bu nedenle Marini’nin katk\u0131s\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6nemi, Amerikan d\u0131\u015f politikas\u0131n\u0131n etkisi, Amerikan \u00e7okuluslu \u015firketlerinin Brezilya’n\u0131n toplumsal d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f\u00fcm\u00fc \u00fczerindeki rol\u00fc, Brezilya’daki s\u0131n\u0131f m\u00fccadeleleri, kapitalist birikimin devinimiyle kapitalist toplumsal ili\u015fkiler i\u00e7inde k\u00f6k salan ve bir k\u0131s\u0131m \u00f6zerkli\u011fi olan devlet aras\u0131ndaki devinimsel etkile\u015fime odaklanmas\u0131d\u0131r. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla Marini’nin analitik yakla\u015f\u0131m\u0131ndan faydalanmak, ‘G\u00fcney Afrika emperyalizmi, G\u00fcney Afrika alt emperyalizmine kar\u015f\u0131’ \u015feklindeki mevcut alanyaz\u0131n\u0131na bela olan \u0131ss\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131n \u00fcstesinden gelebilir. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u00c7a\u011fda\u015f Afrika Ba\u011flam\u0131nda Alt Emperyalizm <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yine de bunlar, Marini’nin kuramsal \u00e7er\u00e7evesinin zaman ve mek\u00e2ndan \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131larak, Afrika ba\u011flam\u0131na haz\u0131r kal\u0131p bir \u015fekilde uygulanabilece\u011fi anlam\u0131na gelmiyor. Marini’nin sanayi \u00fcr\u00fcnleri ihracat\u0131na odaklanmas\u0131, ekonomizmi, ‘G\u00fcney Afrika sermayesi’ kavram\u0131, s\u0131n\u0131f m\u00fccadelesinin b\u00f6lgeselle\u015ftirilmesi, \u0131rk ve toplumsal cinsiyetle ilgili meseleler ve Afrika k\u0131tas\u0131n\u0131n tart\u0131\u015fmaya a\u00e7\u0131k ve farkl\u0131la\u015fm\u0131\u015f do\u011fas\u0131 gibi baz\u0131 anahtar meseleler g\u00fcncelleme, kuramlama ve daha ileri ampirik ara\u015ft\u0131rmay\u0131 gerektiriyor. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sermaye, Sanayi \u00dcr\u00fcnleri \u0130hracat\u0131na Kar\u015f\u0131 <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sanayi \u00fcr\u00fcnlerinin ihracat\u0131, Marini’nin alt emperyalizmi kavramsalla\u015ft\u0131rmas\u0131nda merkezi bir role sahiptir. Bu t\u00fcr ihra\u00e7lar\u0131n alt emperyalizm i\u00e7in (burada anahtar mesele ihracat\u0131n \u015fekli) yeterli bir ko\u015ful olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6zlerken, Marini bunlar\u0131n alt emperyal s\u00fcrecin ayr\u0131lmaz bir par\u00e7as\u0131 oldu\u011funu fark eder (Zirker’den al\u0131nt\u0131 1994, sf. 117\u2013118). Ancak bu, sermaye ihracat\u0131na odaklanan klasik emperyalizm kuramlar\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131d\u0131r (Zirker 1994, s. 117). Ayr\u0131ca, sermaye ihracat\u0131n\u0131n oynad\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirleyici rol\u00fcn artt\u0131\u011f\u0131 G\u00fcney Afrika ger\u00e7ekli\u011fiyle de \u00e7eli\u015fkilidir (Bond 2004). Marini’nin zeminini sanayi \u00fcr\u00fcnlerinin ihrac\u0131nda bulan \u00f6zg\u00fcl alt emperyalizm bi\u00e7imlendirmesi, muhtemelen, G\u00fcney Afrika’n\u0131n sava\u015f ve sava\u015f sonras\u0131 y\u0131llardaki (Gibb 1997, Ahwireng-Obeng ve McGowan 1998) sanayile\u015fme d\u00fcrt\u00fcs\u00fcn\u00fcn (ve uluslararas\u0131 \u015firketlerle G\u00fcney Afrika G\u00fcmr\u00fck Birli\u011fi’nin bunda oynad\u0131\u011f\u0131 rol\u00fcn) analizi ile daha alakal\u0131d\u0131r. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yine de Marini’nin \u00f6zg\u00fcl politik ve ekonomik ba\u011flam\u0131yla Brezilya sanayisinin 1960’lar\u0131n ortas\u0131ndaki geli\u015fim d\u00fczeyini detayl\u0131 bir \u015fekilde analiz ederken sanayi \u00fcr\u00fcnleri ihracat\u0131 \u00fczerindeki vurgusunda titiz oldu\u011funu not etmek gerekir. Yazar, alt emperyalizm tan\u0131m\u0131 i\u00e7inde belirli bir tarihsel ba\u011flamdaki \u00f6zg\u00fcl krize bu \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcm\u00fc \u00fcretirken; analiz y\u00f6nteminin, maddi ko\u015fullar, s\u0131n\u0131f ili\u015fkileri, Amerikan emperyalizmi ve G\u00fcney Afrika ihracat\u0131n\u0131n bi\u00e7imi, do\u011fas\u0131 ve d\u00fczeni aras\u0131ndaki ili\u015fkiyi verimli bir \u015fekilde i\u015fledi\u011fiyse tart\u0131\u015fmaya a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2018G\u00fcney Afrika Sermayesi\u2019 <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

1970’lere geri gidersek, Seidman ve Seidman (1977) ile Makgetla ve Seidman (1980) birlikte kaleme ald\u0131klar\u0131 makalelerinde, ABD’den ve di\u011fer \u00fclkelerden \u00e7okuluslu \u015firketlerin kendi \u00fcr\u00fcnlerini piyasaya s\u00fcr\u00fcp, k\u0131tan\u0131n geri kalan\u0131ndaki i\u015flemlerini de devam ettirmek i\u00e7in G\u00fcney Afrika’y\u0131 nas\u0131l bir kararg\u00e2h olarak kulland\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131n alt\u0131n\u0131 \u00e7iziyor. Marini’nin tahakk\u00fcm edilmi\u015f toplumsal d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f\u00fcm i\u00e7inde emperyal sermayenin oynad\u0131\u011f\u0131 rol\u00fc kavray\u0131\u015f\u0131na uygun olarak, bu eski ara\u015ft\u0131rma, bahsi ge\u00e7en \u015firketlerin, apartheid kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda daha istikrarl\u0131 bir tav\u0131r tak\u0131nmak, b\u00f6lgenin tahakk\u00fcm\u00fc ve G\u00fcney Afrika’n\u0131n sanayile\u015fmesi i\u00e7in Amerikan devletinden g\u00fcven deste\u011fi almada oynad\u0131klar\u0131 b\u00fct\u00fcnleyici rol\u00fc ortaya koyuyor. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

G\u00fcney Afrika’n\u0131n b\u00f6lgedeki rol\u00fc \u00fczerine en yayg\u0131n olan alanyaz\u0131n, ‘G\u00fcney Afrika sermayesine’ odaklan\u0131r ve G\u00fcney Afrika merkezli yabanc\u0131 sermayenin faaliyetlerini ve etkilerini ara\u015ft\u0131rmada ba\u015far\u0131s\u0131z olur. Belirtildi\u011fi gibi, bu \u015firketlerin faaliyetleri ve farkl\u0131la\u015fm\u0131\u015f do\u011fas\u0131n\u0131n G\u00fcney Afrika’n\u0131n b\u00f6lgeyle b\u00fct\u00fcnle\u015fmesini nas\u0131l \u015fekillendi\u011fine y\u00f6nelik k\u0131s\u0131tl\u0131 bir ilgi vard\u0131r. \u00c7in Sanayi ve Ticaret Bankas\u0131’n\u0131n (ICBC), Standard Bank’\u0131n %20’lik hissesini 36,7 milyar randa(1)<\/strong> sat\u0131n almas\u0131, G\u00fcney Afrika’n\u0131n k\u0131tan\u0131n geri kalan\u0131 ile olan ili\u015fkisini de\u011ferlendirirken, tek ba\u015f\u0131na ‘G\u00fcney Afrika sermayesi’ denen \u015feye odaklanman\u0131n imk\u00e2ns\u0131z oldu\u011funun anla\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flar. Bu durum, Marini’nin analitik \u00e7er\u00e7evesini, ulusal sermaye burjuvazisinin birbirine ge\u00e7mesinin yerini ‘i\u00e7 burjuvazinin’ almas\u0131na ba\u011fl\u0131 olarak, Poulantzas’\u0131n anlay\u0131\u015f\u0131na ilave etmenin kullan\u0131\u015fl\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6nemini vurgular. Modern G\u00fcney Afrika b\u00fcnyesindeki i\u00e7 burjuvazinin \u00f6zg\u00fcl d\u00fczenini tan\u0131mlamak ve G\u00fcney Afrika’n\u0131n k\u0131tasal ba\u011fl\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n farkl\u0131 k\u0131s\u0131mlar\u0131n\u0131n etkilerinin izini s\u00fcrmek birer zorluk olarak kalmaya devam eder. ICBC’nin yat\u0131r\u0131m\u0131 ayr\u0131ca G\u00fcney Afrika’n\u0131n b\u00f6lgesel faaliyetlerinin \u00f6ncelikli olarak ABD taraf\u0131ndan belirlenip belirlenmedi\u011fi gibi \u00f6nemli bir soruyu da ileri s\u00fcrer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ekonomizmin \u00dcstesinden Gelme <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Simon, Marini’nin alt emperyalizmi kavramla\u015ft\u0131rmas\u0131ndaki incelikli \u00fcslubuna ra\u011fmen, yine de ‘yerli sermayenin d\u00fczenlenmesi, birikimi ve e\u015flik eden s\u0131n\u0131f m\u00fccadelelerinin alt emperyal eylemde tek neden ya da gerek\u00e7e oldu\u011fu y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki tan\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n’ fazla ekonomist oldu\u011funu g\u00f6zlemler (Simon 1991, s. 24). Bu nedenle, Simon ‘alt emperyalizmin temel karakteristi\u011finin, etraf\u0131ndaki \u00e7eperi belirli bir \u00f6zerklik d\u00fczeyinde tahakk\u00fcm alt\u0131na almak i\u00e7in ayn\u0131 anda hem ekonomik hem de politik\/askeri g\u00fcce sahip olmak’ oldu\u011funu \u00f6ne s\u00fcrer (Simon 1991, s. 24). Apartheid devletinin beyaz az\u0131nl\u0131\u011f\u0131n h\u00e2kimiyetini korumaktaki hedefi, alt emperyal hareketleri etkileyen fakt\u00f6rlerin nas\u0131l kesin olarak sermaye birikimiyle s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131k bir \u00f6rne\u011fini sunmaktad\u0131r. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ekonomizmden uzakla\u015fmak ayr\u0131ca ABD emperyalizminin, G\u00fcney Afrika ekonomisinde yat\u0131r\u0131m faaliyetleriyle do\u011frudan var olmadan nas\u0131l devletin ve sermayenin pratiklerini, politikas\u0131n\u0131 bi\u00e7imlendirdi\u011fini ara\u015ft\u0131rmay\u0131 gerektiriyor. Bond (2000) ve Marais’in ikisi de (1998), Amerikal\u0131 dan\u0131\u015fmanlar\u0131n, uluslararas\u0131 finans kurulu\u015flar\u0131n\u0131n ve makro-ekonomik ve neoliberal bir politika olan B\u00fcy\u00fcme, \u0130stihdam ve Yeniden Da\u011f\u0131l\u0131m’\u0131 benimseyen ANC’yi etkileyen neoliberal ideoloji hegemonyas\u0131n\u0131n oynad\u0131klar\u0131 rol\u00fcn detayl\u0131 ve i\u00e7g\u00f6r\u00fcl\u00fc bir analizini sunar. G\u00fcney Afrika’n\u0131n k\u0131ta \u00e7ap\u0131ndaki ekonomi ve d\u0131\u015f politika s\u00fcrecine y\u00f6nelik daha ayr\u0131nt\u0131l\u0131 analizler de geli\u015ftirildi; d\u0131\u015f etmenlerin etkisi kadar devlet i\u00e7indeki \u00e7eki\u015fmelere y\u00f6nelik bir oda\u011f\u0131 da i\u00e7eren bu ara\u015ft\u0131rmalar alt emperyalizmin mekanizmalar\u0131n\u0131 ve s\u00fcre\u00e7lerini kavray\u0131\u015f\u0131m\u0131z\u0131 derinle\u015ftirebilir. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

B\u00f6lgesel S\u0131n\u0131f M\u00fccadelesi <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Marini \u00f6ncelikli olarak alt emperyal g\u00fc\u00e7lerin bi\u00e7imlendirdi\u011fi alt emperyal s\u00fcre\u00e7ler i\u00e7indeki s\u0131n\u0131f m\u00fccadelelerinin y\u00f6ntemlerine odaklan\u0131yor. Darlene Miller’\u0131n \u00e7okuluslu G\u00fcney Afrika s\u00fcpermarket \u015firketi Shoprite’\u0131n Afrika k\u0131tas\u0131n\u0131n g\u00fcneyine y\u00f6nelik hamlesinin analizi (2004, 2005a, 2005b), bizi s\u0131n\u0131f m\u00fccadelesi perspektifinde daha geni\u015f ve b\u00f6lgesel bir bak\u0131\u015f a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131na sahip olman\u0131n \u00f6nemi konusunda uyar\u0131yor. Miller, Zambiya ve Mozambik’teki G\u00fcney Afrika \u00e7okuluslu \u015firketlerinde \u00e7al\u0131\u015fan i\u015f\u00e7ilerin seferberliklerinin, onlar\u0131n G\u00fcney Afrikal\u0131 i\u015f\u00e7ilerle, \u015firket muhtevas\u0131yla, \u00fcretim departman\u0131 deneyimleriyle ve kendilerinin genel olarak Afrika’n\u0131n g\u00fcney b\u00f6lgesini nas\u0131l kavrad\u0131klar\u0131yla olan etkile\u015fimlerine dayanan ‘b\u00f6lgesel d\u00fc\u015fsellikleri’ taraf\u0131ndan nas\u0131l ayd\u0131nland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ortaya \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131yor. Daha da \u00f6nemlisi, Miller, ‘b\u00f6lgesel i\u015f\u00e7i s\u0131n\u0131f\u0131n\u0131n bi\u00e7imlenmesinin yaln\u0131zca sermayenin uluslararas\u0131 ak\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131 yans\u0131tmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131; ayn\u0131 zamanda Shoprite ve di\u011fer \u00e7okuluslu \u015firketlerin yat\u0131r\u0131m stratejilerini etkileyerek, b\u00f6lgenin bi\u00e7imlenme \u015fekline de y\u00f6n verdi\u011fini’ g\u00f6sterir (Miller 2005a, s. 121). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Irk, Toplumsal Cinsiyet ve S\u0131n\u0131f <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Toplumsal ili\u015fkilerin, alt emperyal s\u00fcre\u00e7leri destekledi\u011finin ne kadar \u00e7eki\u015fmeli oldu\u011funu analiz ederken, \u0131rk ve toplumsal cinsiyet kavramlar\u0131na ve de bunlar\u0131n s\u0131n\u0131f bi\u00e7imlenmeleriyle ne kadar yak\u0131ndan ili\u015fkili oldu\u011fu konusuna \u00f6zen g\u00f6stermek \u00f6nemli olacakt\u0131r. Tarihsel olarak, \u0131rk, G\u00fcney Afrika alt emperyalizminde \u00e7ok \u00f6nemli bir rol oynad\u0131. Simon (1991), beyaz az\u0131nl\u0131\u011f\u0131n h\u00e2kimiyetini koruma hedefinin, apartheid d\u00f6nemi G\u00fcney Afrika’n\u0131n b\u00f6lgesel alt emperyal stratejisinde, nas\u0131l itici bir g\u00fc\u00e7 oldu\u011funun \u00f6nemini vurgular. G\u00fcney Afrika devleti, o d\u00f6nemde, \u00fcst d\u00fczey bir \u00f6zerklikle hareket etmek ve amac\u0131na ula\u015fmak i\u00e7in uluslararas\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015flere kar\u015f\u0131 gelmek istiyordu. Benimsenen \u00f6zg\u00fcl b\u00f6lgesel stratejiler, b\u00f6lgedeki belli toplumsal d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f\u00fcmler i\u00e7erisindeki \u0131rk ve s\u0131n\u0131f devinimleri ile \u015fekillendi (Simon 1991, s. 40). Bu d\u00f6nem hakk\u0131ndaki alanyaz\u0131n i\u00e7erisinde, s\u0131k\u0131l\u0131kla beyaz az\u0131nl\u0131\u011f\u0131n h\u00e2kimiyetinin sona ermesiyle birlikte, di\u011fer Afrika \u00fclkelerindeki G\u00fcney Afrika yat\u0131r\u0131mlar\u0131n\u0131n artmas\u0131n\u0131n kolayla\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 olgusuna referans verilir. Miller, G\u00fcney Afrika sermayesinin, bu s\u00fcreci me\u015frula\u015ft\u0131rmak i\u00e7in kendisini nas\u0131l bilin\u00e7li bir \u015fekilde ‘Afrikal\u0131’ ve Afrika R\u00f6nesans\u0131’n\u0131n bir g\u00f6\u011f\u00fcsleyicisi olarak sundu\u011funun alt\u0131n\u0131 \u00e7izer (Miller 2004). Ayr\u0131ca, b\u00f6lgedeki G\u00fcney Afrika \u00e7okuluslu \u015firketlerinin y\u00f6netimi i\u00e7erisindeki \u0131rksal hiyerar\u015filerin, G\u00fcney Afrikal\u0131 beyaz y\u00f6neticilerin bir k\u0131sm\u0131ndaki \u0131rk\u00e7\u0131 kal\u0131pyarg\u0131larla [stereotypes] birle\u015ferek, emek ili\u015fkilerini ve \u015firketlerin y\u00f6netim stratejilerini nas\u0131l etkiledi\u011fini de inceler (Miller 2005b). Daha ileri bir ara\u015ft\u0131rma alan\u0131 da, siyah\u00ee ekonominin g\u00fc\u00e7lendirilmesinin anlaml\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 de\u011ferlendirmeyi ve G\u00fcney Afrika ile k\u0131ta genelindeki yat\u0131r\u0131m stratejileri ve \u00f6ncelikleri i\u00e7in siyah\u00ee burjuvazinin sa\u011flamla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 i\u00e7erebilir. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Toplumsal cinsiyet, s\u0131n\u0131f ve b\u00f6lgesel s\u00fcre\u00e7ler aras\u0131ndaki ili\u015fkilerin analizi, G\u00fcney Afrika ara\u015ft\u0131rmalar\u0131nda \u00e7arp\u0131c\u0131 bir \u015fekilde eksik kalm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Asya \u00fczerine deneyimlerine sayg\u0131lar\u0131m\u0131zla, Burkett ve Hart-Landsberg (2000, sf. 111\u2013112), Japonya’n\u0131n erken d\u00f6nem ihracat sanayisinde kad\u0131n i\u015f\u00e7ilerin toplumsal cinsiyet\u00e7i s\u00f6m\u00fcr\u00fcs\u00fcn\u00fcn, di\u011fer G\u00fcneydo\u011fu Asya \u00fclkeleri \u00fczerinde \u00fclkeye has ihracat modeli ve alt emperyal tahakk\u00fcm\u00fcn kurulmas\u0131nda merkezi bir rol oynad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6stermi\u015ftir. Toplumsal cinsiyet ve G\u00fcney Afrika alt emperyalizmi aras\u0131ndaki benzer ba\u011flant\u0131lar\u0131 inceleyip su y\u00fcz\u00fcne \u00e7\u0131karmak, ara\u015ft\u0131rmalar i\u00e7in elzem bir ihtiya\u00e7 ta\u015f\u0131r. G\u00fcney Afrika yat\u0131r\u0131mlar\u0131n\u0131n di\u011fer Afrika toplumsal d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f\u00fcmlerindeki farkl\u0131la\u015fm\u0131\u015f bi\u00e7imleri, yerel toplumsal cinsiyet, \u0131rk ve s\u0131n\u0131f ili\u015fkilerden etkileni\u015fi ve bunlara katk\u0131s\u0131 da ayr\u0131ca dikkatle incelenmeyi gerektirir. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u00c7eki\u015fmeli Topraklar <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Alden ve Soko (2005), G\u00fcney Afrika’n\u0131n k\u0131tadaki rol\u00fcyle ilgilenirken, Afrika’ya homojen bir saha gibi davranmama konusunda bizleri uyar\u0131yor. Onlar G\u00fcney Afrika’n\u0131n k\u0131ta ile olan ekonomik ba\u011fl\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 \u00fc\u00e7 sahaya ay\u0131r\u0131yor: G\u00fcney Afrika G\u00fcmr\u00fck Birli\u011fi \u00fclkeleri (GAGB), G\u00fcney Afrika Kalk\u0131nma Toplulu\u011fu \u00fclkeleri (GAKT) ve Zambezi’nin kuzeyindeki kalan Afrika. Alden ve Soko’ya g\u00f6re, G\u00fcney Afrika’n\u0131n hegemonyas\u0131, GAGB antla\u015fmalar\u0131n\u0131n tarihsel olarak e\u015fitsiz olan do\u011fas\u0131n\u0131n yaratt\u0131\u011f\u0131, kemikle\u015fmi\u015f yap\u0131sal e\u015fitsizliklerden dolay\u0131 GAKT’nin i\u00e7inde ‘ortaya \u00e7\u0131k\u0131yor’ (Alden and Soko 2005, s. 370). GAKT i\u00e7erisinde, daha d\u00fc\u015f\u00fck seviyedeki ticaret, G\u00fcney Afrika yat\u0131r\u0131mlar\u0131, GAKT taraf\u0131ndan kar\u015f\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131ya kal\u0131nan \u00f6zg\u00fcl kurumsal problemler ve G\u00fcney Afrika i\u00e7 politikalar\u0131n\u0131n geli\u015fimci b\u00f6lgesel b\u00fct\u00fcnle\u015fme kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda engel yaratan tarz\u0131 nedeniyle G\u00fcney Afrika hegemonyas\u0131n\u0131n \u00e7eki\u015fmeli oldu\u011funu iddia ediyorlar (Alden and Soko 2005, sf. 374\u2013379). En \u00f6nemlisi de, onlara g\u00f6re, G\u00fcney Afrika yat\u0131r\u0131mlar\u0131n\u0131n ciddi anlamda artmas\u0131na ve banka ve finans sekt\u00f6rlerinin belirgin bir \u015fekilde ak\u0131n yapmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen, Zambezi Nehri’nin kuzeyinde G\u00fcney Afrika hegemonyas\u0131 ‘ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmemi\u015f’ olmas\u0131. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yazarlar bunu, Nijerya, M\u0131s\u0131r ve Tunus’un her birinin di\u011fer t\u00fcm Afrika \u00fclkelerinin aksine G\u00fcney Afrika ile ili\u015fkilerinde ticari fazla elde etmelerine dayand\u0131r\u0131yor (Alden ve Soko 2005, s. 382). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Alden ve Soko ilave olarak \u015funu da not d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcyor: ‘Di\u011fer yabanc\u0131 akt\u00f6rlerle rekabet etme becerisinin yan\u0131s\u0131ra; kendi b\u00f6lgesinin \u00f6tesinde temel belirleyen, G\u00fcney Afrika’n\u0131n, k\u0131tan\u0131n di\u011fer \u00f6nde gelen Afrikal\u0131 g\u00fcc\u00fc Nijerya’yla olan ili\u015fkileri olacakt\u0131r (Alden and Soko 2005, s. 36). G\u00fcney Afrika’n\u0131n k\u0131tadaki rol\u00fc \u00fczerine olan alanyaz\u0131n\u0131 i\u00e7erisinde bu zorlu\u011fa de\u011finen; ayr\u0131ca G\u00fcney Afrika yat\u0131r\u0131mlar\u0131n\u0131n ve \u00fclkenin di\u011fer Afrikal\u0131 \u00fclkelerle uluslararas\u0131 g\u00fc\u00e7lere d\u00f6n\u00fck d\u0131\u015f politikas\u0131n\u0131n etki ve g\u00fcc\u00fcn\u00fc somut terimlerle inceleyen ara\u015ft\u0131rmalar \u015fa\u015f\u0131rt\u0131c\u0131 olarak pek azd\u0131r. Bu t\u00fcr ara\u015ft\u0131rmalar, kapsam\u0131 ve bir o kadar da G\u00fcney Afrika alt emperyalizminin k\u0131tan\u0131n di\u011fer b\u00f6lgelerindeki varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 kavramada paha bi\u00e7ilmez bir de\u011fer sunacakt\u0131r. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Te\u015fekk\u00fcr <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yazar, bu makalenin \u00f6nceki a\u015famalar\u0131ndaki yorumlar\u0131ndan \u00f6t\u00fcr\u00fc Leo Panitch ve Patrick Bond’a te\u015fekk\u00fcr eder. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kaynak\u00e7a <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ahwireng-Obeng, F. & P.J. McGowan (1998), \u2018Partner or hegemon? South Africa in Africa\u2019, Journal of Contemporary African Studies, 16(1), pp. 5\u201338. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Alden, C. & M. Soko (2005), \u2018South Africa\u2019s economic relations with Africa: hegemony and its discontents\u2019, Journal of Modern African Studies, 42(3), pp. 367\u2013392. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Arrighi, G. (2005), \u2018Hegemony inravelling \u2013 I\u2019, New Left Review, 32, pp. 23\u201380. Bond, P. (2000), Elite transition: from apartheid to neoliberalism in South Africa, Pietermartizburg: University of Natal Press. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

(2004), \u2018Bankrupt Africa: imperialism, subimperialism and the politics of finance\u2019, Historical Materialism, 12(4), pp. 145\u2013172. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

(2005), \u2018US Empire and South African Subimperialism.\u2019, in L. Panitch & C. Leys (eds.), Socialist register 2005: the empire reloaded, New York: Monthly Review Press, 218\u2013238. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

(2006), Looting Africa: the economics of exploitation, London and Durban: Zed Books and UKZN Press. Burkett, P. & M. Hart-Landsberg <\/p>\n\n\n\n

(2000), Development, crisis, and class struggle: learning from Japan and East Asia, New York: St Martin\u2019s Press. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Gibb, R. (1997), \u2018Regional integration in post-Apartheid Southern Africa: the case of renegotiating the Southern African customs union\u2019, Journal of Southern African Studies, 23(1), pp. 67\u201386. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hardt, M. & A. Negri (2002), Empire, Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Harvey, D. (2005), The new imperialism, Oxford: Oxford University Press. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lesufi, I. (2004), \u2018South Africa and the rest of the continent: towards a critique of the political economy of NEPAD\u2019, Current Sociology, 52(5), pp. 809\u2013829. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

(2006), Nepad and South African imperialism, Johannesburg: Jubilee South Africa. Makgetla, N. & A. Seidman <\/p>\n\n\n\n

(1980), Outposts of monopoly capitalism: Southern Africa in the changing global economy, Westport CT: Lawrence Hill & Co. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Marais, H. (1998), South Africa limits to change: the political economy of transformation, Cape Town: University of Cape Town Press. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Marini, R.M. (1965), \u2018Brazilian \u2018interdependence\u2019 and imperialist integration\u2019, Monthly Review, 17(7), pp. 10\u201329. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

(1972), \u2018Brazilian subimperialism\u2019, Monthly Review, 23(9), pp. 14\u201324. Meikins Wood, E. (2005), Empire of capital, London: Verso. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Miller, D. (2004), \u2018South African multinational corporations, NEPAD and competing spatial claims on Post-Apartheid Southern Africa\u2019, African Sociological Review, 8(1), pp. 176\u2013202. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

(2005a), \u2018New regional imaginaries in post-Apartheid Southern Africa \u2013 retail workers at a shopping mall in Zambia\u2019, Journal of Southern African Studies, 31(1), pp. 117\u2013145. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

(2005b), White managers and the African renaissance \u2013 a \u2018retail renaissance,\u2019 or a new colonial encounter at South African companies in foreign African countries. Paper presented at Codesria 11th General Assembly, December, in Maputo. 102 Review of African Political Economy Downloaded By: [York University Libraries] At: 08:57 13 May 2009 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Panitch, L. & S. Gindin (2004), \u2018Global capitalism and American empire\u2019, in (ed.), Socialist register 2004: the new imperial challenge, London: Merlin Press. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Panitch, L. and Gindin, S., 2005. Towards a theory of the capitalist imperial state. (Electronic version from authors). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Poulantzas, N. (1974), Classes in contemporary capitalism, London: Verso. Robinson,W.I. (2004), A theory of global capitalism: production, class, and state in a transnational world, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Seidman, A.&N. Seidman (1977), South Africa and U.S. multinational corporations, Westport, CT: Lawrence Hill & Co. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Simon, D. (1991), \u2018The ties that bind: decolonisation and neo-colonialism in Southern Africa.\u2019, in C. Dixon & M. Heffernan (eds.), Colonialism and development in the contemporary world, London: Mansell. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sklair, L. (2001), The transnational capitalist class, Oxford: Basil Blackwell. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Zirker, D. (1994), \u2018Brazilian foreign policy and subimperialism during the political transition of the 1980s: a review and reapplication of Marini\u2019s theory\u2019, Latin American Perspectives, 20(1), pp. 115\u2013131. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dipnot:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

1.)<\/strong> Rand: G\u00fcney Afrika para birimi. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Melanie Samson  (\u00c7eviri: Asl\u0131 G\u00f6ymen)  Dakar’da MNET’in me\u015fhur Egoli adl\u0131 pembe dizisini seyredebilir, Maputo’daki Nando’s’da G\u00fcney Afrika \u00fcsul\u00fc peri tavu\u011fu yiyebilir, Harare’deki bir Standart Bank ATM’sinden para \u00e7ekebilir, Bat\u0131 Cape’ten gelen taze Ceres marka meyve sular\u0131n\u0131z\u0131 Lusaka’daki Shoprite’da i\u00e7ebilir ve t\u00fcm bunlar\u0131n hepsini Botswana’dan gelen bir DeBeers elmas\u0131 ser\u00e7e parma\u011f\u0131n\u0131za tak\u0131l\u0131yken yapabilirsiniz. Apartheid sonras\u0131 G\u00fcney […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":358,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[635],"tags":[436,437,441,201,435,439,438,281],"class_list":["post-1200","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-alt-emperyalizm","tag-afrika","tag-alt","tag-altemperyalist","tag-emperyalist","tag-guney","tag-sekillendirmek","tag-tartismayi","tag-yeniden"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/trockist.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1200","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/trockist.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/trockist.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trockist.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trockist.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1200"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/trockist.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1200\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1201,"href":"https:\/\/trockist.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1200\/revisions\/1201"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trockist.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/358"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/trockist.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1200"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trockist.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1200"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trockist.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1200"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}