President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's criticism of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) during the Peru-Turkey Business Forum, where he attended with Peruvian President Ollanta Humala, was loudly applauded. Indeed, this was the anticipated reaction, as Latin American countries, just like Turkey, have suffered a lot at the hands of the IMF. These countries spent most of the previous century implementing the IMF's economic prescriptions. Erdoğan said the IMF is not an economic institution alone, but it tries to steer politics as well, adding, "Most of the time, the IMF failed to make an educated guess about us. When we came to power, we owed $23.5 billion to the IMF. Now, however, we have no debt to it. We have reached this point. The IMF does not manage the loan, the money that it provides. Rather, it provides you with a loan, and then it tries to manage you politically. Is it possible [to accept] such an international monetary fund?"

Just a day before Erdoğan made these remarks, IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde said the fall in oil prices "keeps her awake." She thinks the rapid decline in oil and commodity prices will lead to unrecoverable fractures in oil producing and exporting countries - which reveals her concerns about the increasingly intensifying global recession. Here, Lagarde has two basic concerns. One of them is that oil and natural gas exporting developing countries fail to pay their debts due to their falling revenues - which, as is known, is the base of the IMF's existence. The other is that falling prices will further trigger and escalate the recession and that developed countries are facing a tougher wave of bankruptcy than the 2008 financial crisis.

For instance, the U.S.'s companies, particularly those which are engaged in technology, are heading toward $2 trillion in cash assets; however, they do not have areas to invest this money in. On the other hand, political tension and wars in developing countries further disturb income distribution - which has led to stagnation in demand for individual technological goods.

The world's production potential and labor force - majorly human capital - are represented by the component of production means and technological accumulation. If this potential is above the actual output level, it points to major problems. Carl Marx defined the crisis in this way a long time ago and now it is called the "output gap." A qualified labor force and the existing technology do not turn into actual production and welfare, which leads to a rapid rise in youth unemployment, a decrease in investments and a shortage in demand.

This state of chronic crisis does not change the necessary outlays of governments, however, it reduces their revenues, particularly those generated from taxes, and pushes debt ratios to their peak. The ratio of public debt to gross domestic product (GDP) in the eurozone soared to 92 percent in 2014 from 65 percent in 2007. This ratio will soon reach a level that will change all the balances in the EU. This is what lies behind the great concerns of European countries in the face of refugees. Just as during the Nazi period, they even have an eye on refugee's jewelry.

As high-tech companies, especially those in the U.S., cannot find areas to invest their cash assets in, traditional industrial companies suffer from weaknesses in demand. Currently, we are talking about the fall in oil prices as it is more popular, however, iron ore, which is one of the main inputs of traditional industry, has dropped to $42.50 now from $135 in 2014 on a metric ton basis. This is all to say that the decline in oil prices is not a game the U.S. has played to push Russia into a tight corner.

So, how will the world overcome this increasingly escalating crisis? Will the world achieve a new balance through a new war on sharing? In 1848, the world experienced a crisis that was similar to the current one where the accumulated production potential fails to turn into actual production. As a result of this, the capitalism that upheld free market and competition, and the foundations of which were laid by Britain's industrial and France's political revolutions, was upside down. The foundations of Laissez-faire were destroyed in the 1860s. As other countries became industrialized, it came to light that free trade and market was not enough for Britain to maintain its position as the single or main factory of the world. As British historian Eric Hobsbawm suggests in his "Industry and Empire," Britain's failure to maintain its position pushed the world to revise international economic policies. Hobsbawm said that concepts such as small state budgets, world peace and competitive economy are a thing of the past - as of the 1870s. The crisis would never be overcome through wars, huge bureaucracy and states that were suffocated by large monopolies.

The current crisis is not only a financial crisis, but also the collapse of this entrenched mistake of the 19th century and of inhumane civilization. In short, today's "neo-liberals" buried the real liberalism nearly two centuries ago.

First of all, the end of the crisis depends on the end of outdated state hierarchies that have fallen behind for nearly two centuries along with their political, economic and trade system. This is why we say, "The world is bigger than five." Second, countries that were deprived of their economies and political wills in this process must create a new economy and political will.

Currently, Turkey is one of the few developing countries that strives to do this. All economic and political talks and quests on regional and global levels are occurring as a result of this effort. Turkey's quest is also the quest of all southern and eastern countries. Turkey's questioning of this system, which was imposed as a result of the 19th century paradigm, and its quest for a transition to a new system is a major tendency that will determine the 21st century and its region. This is why Turkey seeks a new democratic constitution and a presidential system that will be achieved through a social and democratic consensus.