The Language of Concepts and the Analysis of Political Understanding in Turkey

In Turkey, we all have a political opinion. More precisely, we think we do. However, we do not realise what it costs our country and us to be dragged after concepts that we do not even know what they are! When you are asked, you all say that you are right or left wing. So I ask you, what is right or left wing?

For example, over time, the leftist view has come to mean the following. Those who advocate continuous innovations, those who advocate that the living standards of the people should be improved and those who advocate replacing the system that does not work with a better one belonged to the leftist view. On the other hand, the right-wing view included those who were satisfied with the existing order, those who were against changing the systems and those who believed that the rights of capital owners should be protected before the rights of employees. In fact, understanding the concepts correctly is related to understanding how things actually are.

Right-wing and left-wing views are sociologically based rather than ideologically based and express more of an economic understanding. If a party is right-wing, it takes development decisions in line with the wishes of capital owners. Although some of you may object to this view, sociological reality shows this. In fact, with the exception of a few parties representing the leftist view in our country, they are not much different from the rightist parties. They call this "capitalism". This is how giant companies with capital are formed. If a party is leftist, the income level of the people is the main goal of its economic policy. In this model, the wishes of the owners of capital can still be taken into account, but the whole economy is not shaped accordingly. In other words, if the standard of living of the people will not increase, the capital boss can be told "goodbye".

As can be seen, this is what right and left mean in the world. Before coming to the dire situation in Turkey, let's have a look at the extremes and moderates of right and left.

ANARCHY:

When we say left, let us first remember that the concept of increasing the freedoms of the people should come to mind. We call anarchy when people's freedoms become unlimited. In other words, no rules are recognised. The freedom of someone to kill you can also be considered freedom. This is called the extreme left. Because any means to an end is permissible.

COMMUNISM:

Although communism seems to be good in the sense that it is based on the abolition of the rich-poor distinction among the people, if you have noticed, it is an extreme idea. The reason is that it advocates the abolition of homeland and borders as well as social classes. In other words, it has a quarrelsome approach to the concept of country, which has caused significant problems in the world and laid the foundation for its own destruction.

SOCIAL DEMOCRACY:

Social democracy proposes the idea of an egalitarian society that eliminates the inequality between rich and poor and that there are no social classes. In this system, it is essential that workers are fully compensated for their labour. It opposes the phenomenon of working hard and earning little money as in capitalism. However, it has not been implemented today.

CENTRE LEFT:

The right or left is called the centre for the following reason. We can say that they differ from each other with the idea of which one they will be predisposed to in the next stage. They also use the parts of each other's values that are useful to them. We can say that the centre-left is a political view that aims to raise the economic income level of the people by supporting the economic power of the capital class.

CENTRE RIGHT:

Likewise, when we say centre-right, it should be understood that while fulfilling the rights and demands of the owners of capital, the economic interests of the people should also be observed. It is fair to say that there is as much difference between the centre-right and the centre-left as a thread of cotton. Both do more or less the same job.

LIBERALISM:

The system we call liberalism defends the economic freedom to own property. It defends all freedoms. In practice, the defence of the freedom to own property also leads to the birth of super-rich classes. This is the point that cannot be reconciled with socialism. There is no legal obstacle to the poor becoming rich in some way, but there is no way for them to become rich, because the owners of capital can realise their freedom of property by making them do a lot of work for little money, and there is no obstacle to this. Because everything is based on economic freedom, even if it is extreme.

CONSERVATISM:

This system is now an advanced stage of liberalism. Capital owners have an important place in society and it is mostly these people who run this system. This is accepted and strongly defended. Commitment to these values is shown. It is essential that the rich can become richer. It is not desirable for the poor to become poorer, but there is no preventive mechanism in front of this. In the philosophical dimension, whatever stereotypical values exist in the society in which we live, we want them to continue without renewal. You can also include religion, political structure and eating habits. The value defended is chosen especially from taboos and the mass is gathered in this way.

FASCISM:

The most extreme point has now been reached. Conservatism has reached the point of following the defended value without questioning. Whatever the leader says, the community follows it without questioning. All kinds of values are defended unadulteratedly. When the community becomes too attached to values, it starts to see itself as superior. It often declares its race as the superior race. The leader realises everything in every way in line with the desired goal. There is an excessive attachment to religion, race, language, life and any other concept you can think of, and this attachment is taken as a companion for the purpose without any criticism. This is called the extreme right. The most obvious example of this is Hitler in history.

These concepts are understood when it comes to right and left in the world, but when we look at what is understood in our country, it is very confusing. Because in order to understand what is what in our country, it is necessary to read world history and synthesise it with Ottoman history rather than reading political sciences.

Yes, now we need to understand why politics in Turkey ends soon after it starts. The development of an economic perspective in Turkey, as understood in the world when it comes to the right and the left, is only encountered in Atatürk's era. Here is the proof! In the eyes of the public, right-wing parties are composed of Muslims. They protect religion. Let's take a look at the values used by right-wing parties and see how relevant they are to politics. We are religious, although Islam or any religion has no direct relation with politics, this discourse is used to win votes. While right and left are only economic concepts, they are turned into religious concepts. We will help the poor with money and goods. This discourse is not a discourse of the right. The right's plan to enrich the people does not include direct aid, but empowering capital owners and creating employment. It is an interesting concept related to the intermingling of the right and the left. Privatisation leads to economic development. This has nothing to do with either rightism or leftism. The concept of privatisation has no place anywhere in the political understanding of right and left in the world. There is no country that has achieved development through privatisation. This is an interesting detail that is worth analysing.

We are nationalists:

This discourse has the same effect as saying we are religious. There is no need to be rightist or leftist to be a nationalist. While anyone who loves their homeland can be a nationalist, this concept is associated with the right. My article on this subject has been published before. This is enough to understand what our country has become. What is interesting is that all over the world, those who defend right-wing parties and vote for right-wing parties are those who are economically well-off and interested in trade and industry. However, in our country, those who vote for the right-wing parties are mostly poor and uneducated people from the lower stratum of society. This is our undeniable sociological reality. In this respect, we are going in the opposite direction to the world. Now, what is understood by the term "left" in Turkey? Let's look at this a little and find out. When the left is mentioned in Turkey, concepts such as irreligion and hostility to religion come to mind. However, as we said at the beginning, the right and the left in politics have nothing to do with religion. However, the public perception is in this direction. This situation is being fuelled by politicians themselves. Now let's take a look at how the concepts associated with the left are understood in our country.

Secularism:

Secularism is the expression of the concepts we have explained from the beginning with a single word. In other words, politics is related to the economy and the money in our pockets. Religion has nothing to do with politics. However, when this is said, secularism is called irreligion! In order to win votes, some politicians make a special effort to alienate this concept, which the public already does not understand, by using discourses such as "secularism is religion, secularism is irreligion", and the public forgets about the money in their pockets, instead believing that their religion is under threat and distancing themselves from this concept, which they already do not fully understand.

Extreme Left:

In the world, anarchy is understood when it comes to the extreme left. The concept we call anarchy means rulelessness. There is no specific leader, because in anarchy every individual is free and self-governing. In our country, terrorism is understood when we say extreme left... In Turkey, there were events similar to anarchism only for a period, but they were destroyed by a coup d'état. Both anarchism and terrorism are violent and the difference is almost only in the aim. Terrorism is an organised movement and has a specific leadership. It does not defend freedoms and is completely opposed to all freedoms other than its own. The aim of terrorism is to shed blood and create fear. In other words, it has nothing to do with the concept of freedom. Terrorism does not think when it kills both right-wing and left-wing people who oppose its cause. Since this detail is not understood by our people, completely irrelevant concepts such as irreligion and terrorism come to mind when the left is mentioned. Now let us analyse the interesting segments from which leftist parties receive votes. In the world, poor and unemployed people vote for leftist parties. Because the aim of left parties is to raise the income level of the people. They support agriculture and animal husbandry, so the lower class votes for the left. However, in our country, the educated, business and capital owners vote for the left parties. In other words, the opposite of the world is also the case here. Academics, researchers, high income earners and public intellectuals vote for the left. However, when we look at the world, this group votes for the right parties. In our country, we have clearly examined that the right is not right and the left is not left. In this nonsense environment, you can say whether you can say forty mules or forty lines, and if you say that, it means that you have started to understand what politics is.

What Does Atatürk Say?

Finally, let's take a look at what Atatürk's understanding of politics is like. Is Atatürk's understanding of politics right or left? He was the first practitioner of this understanding in the world and laid the foundation of a new political understanding. Atatürk analysed all the systems in the world and developed his own unique system which can be considered as a great system even today. We can summarise his system as follows. To collect the most beautiful pollen from every flower and make the most beautiful honey. Because he is not blindly attached to any political view. He has no ideological obsession. This paved the way for free thought. In short, he is a unique person with his own way of eating. He took what was useful from each political view and did not use the rest. Now let's take a look at what he took from where.

If you have noticed, Kemalism embraces most of the economic and political views in the world, some of which it strongly opposes. It supports the left up to social democracy, which is a soft part, and opposes it at the point where it reaches communism. It favours the right up to liberalism, but strongly opposes conservatism and fascism. At the centre of Kemalism is the public interest and progressivism. In other words, Kemalism is neither rightism nor leftism. Therefore, neither those who claim to be left-wing nor those who claim to be right-wing can fully love Kemalism. The aim is not politics, but the economic interests of the people and the progressive continuation of the state. The leftists do not like Kemalism because they cannot get an answer to their demand for excessive freedom, and the rightists because they cannot find men who will do a lot of work for little money. Kemalism is so comprehensive that if one leaves the scope of Kemalism, then the right will be on the right. Conservatism and fascism on the right and communism and anarchism on the left. In other words, once you leave this axis, the possibility of the country's progress completely disappears. This is the reason why the enemies of Turkey in the world want to eliminate Kemalism by all means. If Kemalism is removed, what is left is a state drifting in extremes, and you can drag this state wherever you want. So, how did European countries such as America, Germany, England, etc. become rich through liberal democracy? The answer is not that liberalism is a great system.

The answer is that these countries have been and still are transferring the resources of other countries to their own countries. If a poor and backward country switches to a liberal economy without completing its development, it becomes a bite for the big economic giants. Ataturk planned to develop with the leftist economy and transition to the liberal economy when he completed his development, but this could not be realised because his life was not enough and no one could understand him. The transition to a liberal economy was made without development and the results are obvious. In the extreme of the left and the extreme of the right, a veil descends on people's eyes and the development of the country becomes impossible. The extreme of the left is communism and anarchy. In these systems, there is always freedom in the minds, but the losses are not seen while blindly pursuing this idea.

In the name of freedom, the confusion in the country under the name of freedom cannot be prevented. In the extreme of the right, taboo subjects such as religion and nation are pursued so blindly that it is said that whether it is about religion and nation, it should be made of mud. When the eyes are blinded by these concepts, the developments in the country are not followed and a great atmosphere is created for all kinds of destructive activities to take place in the country. Hitler was so blinded by the concepts of race and nation that he could not realise that the society was divided within itself and his state was divided and his army was destroyed.

You have read the article. Do you still hold the same political views? Or have you realised what you stand for?