Kemalism is Fascism - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Inter-war period (1919-1938), Russian civil war (1917–1921) and other non World War topics (1914-1945).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By Vasili Schmidt
#1008120
Historical background of Turkey:

Before the republic of Turkey was formed the Ottoman empire financed itself by plundering territory already under its control and also by raiding adjacent lands. While other countries were beginning to develop modern bourgeois industrial economies, the Industrial Revolution had not reached the Ottoman empire by the end of the 19th century; this was a crucial factor in its collapse.

This crisis accelerated towards the end of the 19th century, aggravated by the actions of France and Britain, who set up their own financial offices in Turkey in order to collect their foreign debts at the source. The economy at this time was in the hands of a class which consisted of a few non-Muslim Ottoman citizens who collaborated with foreign imperialist powers. We call these people the comprador bourgeoisie. At the same time an emergent Turkish-Muslim bourgeoisie, known as the Young Turks, some of whom had been educated in Europe, began moves to seize control of the economy from the compradors and to stave off the economic collapse.

The republic of Turkey was formed on the 29th October 1923. During the First Imperialist War the Ottoman empire was an ally of Germany, and because Germany was defeated, Turkey suffered the same fate. After Turkey’s defeat she was immediately occupied by the British, French and Italian imperialist forces. The occupation incited hatred in the masses, causing them to set up anti-occupation resistance groups.

As a result of Turkey’s defeat in the First Imperialist War the Turkish-Muslim comprador bourgeoisie lost control to the imperialist occupiers. In an attempt to regain power they formulated slogans aimed at gaining the support of all groups and classes of Turkish society, including the Kurds. It was this group behind the anti-occupation uprising known as the "war of liberation," between 1919 and 1923. Although Turkey won this "war of liberation," its economy was still dependent upon imperialist forces because the comprador bourgeoisie was the ruling class. Even as the "independence movement" was growing in strength, the Turkish comprador bourgeoisie was double-dealing, and entered into negotiations with the occupying forces. Before the "war of liberation," Turkey was a colonial country. After the war it became a semi- feudal and semi-colonial country.

Both sides were then influenced by events in Turkey's northern neighbour, Russia, namely the 1917 Great October Revolution: the Turkish comprador bourgeoisie’s political and economic interests were threatened, as were the interests of the occupying forces. It was perceived as beneficial by both sides to reach an agreement as soon as possible, and this resulted in the Treaty of Sevres signed in 1920 and the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923.

After Lausanne, although the occupying forces were withdrawn or rendered inactive, their economic and political interests remained, in fact, protected as they had been before under Ottoman rule. In order to gain power the Turkish comprador bourgeoisie under the leader, Mustafa Kemal "Atatürk," had promised national rights to the Kurds. He had agreed to recognise civil liberties for all the people and to redistribute land to the smallholder and landless peasants.

However, when the Kemalists came to power, in order to protect their alliance with the imperialists they began reactionary and barbaric methods to control the people. Using the Italian fascist penal code as a model the newly - made Turkish constitution of 1924 was effectively drawn up so that even the most basic of human rights was withdrawn. Freedom of speech and the freedom of the press were suppressed. It became illegal to hold meetings or to go on strike. Indeed any criticism of the state, whether written or verbal, in the press or through the arts, was forbidden.

The state had needed the support of the Kurds during the "war of liberation," hence its promises to the Kurds of national rights. But the Kurds' support was expendable to the Kemalists after they had gained power, as the 1925 massacre of the Kurds during the Shikh Said uprising very clearly illustrated. The second uprising lasted from 1927 to 1939, and the third, known as the Dersim Uprising (between 1936 - 39) left thousands of Kurds dead.


WHAT IS KEMALISM ?

The official version of the history of the Turkish state at this time bears very little resemblance to the actual events. Not surprisingly, the authorised version does not interpret events as exploitation, persecution and massacres. The history of the Turkish republic and the ideas and character of the leader of the Turkish bourgeoisie, Mustafa Kemal, have been distorted from beginning to end.

Turkish people are indoctrinated with Kemalist ideas from an early age. The intention is to mesmerise people into thinking that if they love Mustafa Kemal they will go to heaven, and if they don’t, they will go to hell. Kemalism is represented as being the only valid path to follow. Everyone accuses each other of not being a true Kemalist and in inter-party political struggles this is a reason often given in order to denounce someone.

If we examine Mustafa Kemal and the deeds of his followers, it is easy do discern the true character of Kemalism. Firstly, Kemalism is opposed to all progressive forces. During the country’s years of occupation before 1923, the Kemalists established a good relationship with the Soviet Union, receiving moral, financial and military support from them. This resulted in the occupying imperialists' being forced into concessions in the "war of liberation." As soon as agreement was reached with the occupying forces, the Kemalists took action against all progressives, democrats, revolutionaries and communists.

Secondly, Kemalism is fascist. The Kemalists did not hesitate in massacring, imprisoning, exiling and hanging these workers, peasants and people who tried to claim their basic rights, such as the right to work, education, distribution of the land and personal freedom. Another example of the Kemalists' double-dealing was their treatment of the Communist Party of Turkey (CPT). The leader, Mustafa Suphi was in the Soviet Union together with 14 Central Committee members. They formed the CPT on the 10th September 1920 in Baku. The following year, Mustafa Kemal called them back to Turkey with the invitation to join forces and "liberate" the new country together. On their return journey, whilst crossing the Black Sea, they were assassinated by the Kemalists.

Kemalism also embodies extreme nationalism and racism; racism is particularly directed at the Kurdish nation, as well as at other minorities. The Kemalists had promised independence and liberty to the Kurdish people during the years of occupation in order to gain their support during the "war of liberation." After the war when they asked for their promised demands the answer they received was a most definite no, and there followed the massacres in which tens of thousands of Kurdish people were killed.

Kemalism played an active role collaborating with the imperialist powers, who were involved in the suppression of anti-fascist and anti-imperialist elements amongst the peoples of the Middle East and elsewhere. Under Kemalist rule, Turkey continued to be exploited by imperialist powers, especially by the USA. Even after the death of Mustafa Kemal and his colleagues, Kemalist ideology continued to permeate the ideas of people of all political persuasions and indeed it was not until the 1970s that anybody was able to analyze it’s reactionary and fascist character and to struggle against it. The pioneer of this thinking was the Communist Party of Turkey / Marxist Leninist (TKP/ML) leader, Ibrahim Kaypakkaya, who spoke out amidst cries of derision and shock from the other left-wing parties. Here are TKP/ML analyses on Kemalism and Kemalist "revolution":

1) The Kemalist "revolution" was a revolution of the top stratum of the Turkish merchant bourgeoisie, landlords, usurers and a few industrialists. Both the comprador Turkish bourgeoisie, and the middle bourgeoisie of national character took part in the revolution.

2) The leaders of the "revolution," starting during the years of the "war of liberation," set out to collaborate with Allied imperialism in an underhand way. The imperialists took a benevolent stand towards the Kemalists and looked favourably at the possibility of a Kemalist power.

3) This collaboration became even stronger and continued after the Kemalists signed a peace treaty with the imperialists. The Kemalist movement developed "against the peasants and workers, and against the very possibility of an agrarian revolution."

4) As a result of the Kemalist movement, the colonial, semi-colonial and semi-feudal structure of Turkey was replaced by a semi-colonial and semi-feudal structure. In other words, the semi-colonial and semi-feudal economic structure remained intact.

5) In the social field, the new Turkish bourgeoisie which developed from within the middle bourgeoisie of national character and which set out to collaborate with imperialism, plus a section of the old Turkish comprador big bourgeoisie and plus the new bureaucracy took the place of the comprador big bourgeoisie of the national minorities, plus the old bureaucracy and plus the Ottoman intelligentsia. The domination of some of the old landlords, big landowners, usurers and speculating merchants continued, while the rest of them were replaced by new ones. Kemalist power as a whole, does not represent the interests of the middle bourgeoisie of national character but interests of the above classes and strata.


BREAKING WITH KEMALISM

What was the position of the left-wing and progressive movements until the 1970s ? All parties and groups, including left-wing ones, regarded Mustafa Kemal, Kemalism as a positive force in Turkish society. Until this date the followers of the Communist Party of Turkey and other left-wing groups had been unable to set up a proper programme against either Kemalism or the political auhority of the fascist state. Instead of taking independent revolutionary steps, they had always been affiliated to one of the main parties in the system: Republican Peoples’ Party and the Justice Party. However, between 1965 and the early 1970s, the class struggle was intensifying and a revolutionary situation was developing, echoing the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China and student movements in Europe.

The masses and especially the youth were struggling more and more openly against the injustices in Turkey and against the domination of Turkey by imperialist powers. Revolutionary struggle and radicalism against fascism, imperialism and revisionism attracted the masses. From this mass movement some radical petty-bourgeois organisations and parties emerged. For instance the THKP-C (liberation peoples’ party of Turkey - Front) and THKO (liberation peoples’ army of Turkey). Even though the ideology of these organisations contradicted Kemalism in many practical, political and theoretical aspects, they still believed themselves to be Kemalist and followers of Kemalism. A starting illustration of this was the shouts from the scaffold of "long live Kemalism" by members of these parties who were executed by the Kemalists following the military coup of 1971. The revolutionary cadres in the 1970s did not understand Kemalist ideology and the structure of state, which was shaped by Kemalist ideology, as they had analyzed and they were adherents of Kemalism.

http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/count ... story.html
User avatar
By Doomhammer
#1015307
On the contrary my friend, Kemalism is actually very much left-wing.

The historical background part is accurate (to an extent). The Ottoman Empire , due its narrow-minded nature, was very late to start industrializing and relied heavily on its traditional feudal system. The Turkish Revolution happened because, as you have mentioned, the later Ottoman bureaucrats where actually Turks (not from other ethnic groups like in the past) educated in Europe started to organize.

There were four major groups of educated Turks: those who wanted westernization, those who wanted a new wealthy Muslim nation, those who wanted a "Great Turkic" state and those who wanted to maintain the status quo.

Mustafa Kemal was obviously from the first group and when the war was won he wanted to consolidate his vision by outlawing parties which he felt were a threat to the new and delicate republic. Its true, Atatürk outlawed religious parties and some communist parties but we must think critically before labeling Atatürk as a fascist dictator. Also, it’s true that Atatürk is seen as a very important person by Turks, but he is in no sense a religious figure so you can leave the part about worshiping Atatürk. The whole "worshipping Atatürk" thing is actually a form of exploitation by the recent governments in Turkey. The governments acted with impunity by declaring that "Atatürk would have approved x" etc. That’s exploiting people's respect and admirati0on for a great leader.

You also haven’t explained the principles of Kemalizm in your post.

The elements of Kemalism are:

Secularism (laicism)
Reformism
Nationalism (every person in the Turkish national borders are considered to be Turks and Turkish citizens irrespective to their ethnic or religious background)
Populism
Republicanism
Revolutionism (this sounds really fascist yes?)
Statism

The one problem with these principles is is that all parties in Turkey seem to have a Kemalist ideology, but this is, as I said before, parties exploiting people.


Thank you for reading, we can now see that Kemalism is very much “right-wing” :roll: and I hope to read more of your ill-intentioned anti-Turkish posts elsewhere…
:roll:

by the way, this article is from a radical left-wing website, radical people see the world in black and white. To a communist everyone else or everything else is right-wing and vice versa is true for right-wing fanatics.
By kami321
#1015897
Doomhammer
I didn't bother reading Vasili's orignial article since it is an obvious piece of lousy propaganda.

But I ask you - what exactly do you understand as kemalism? The way I see it, Ataturk did not have a specific ideology for Turkey - he just wanted reforms to bring turkey out of the backwardness it was stuck in for so many years. Kemal's ideology was just that, the additional aspects (socialism, nationalism, etc) came more from his fellow partisans rather than from Kemal himself.

IMO, he did not have a firm ideology and shifted alliance quite often in order to balance forces, and therefore it is incorrect to seek some kind of specific "Kemalist" ideology.
User avatar
By Doomhammer
#1016075
You are correct, kemalism isn't in it self a unique ideology but rather embodies the principles of what Atatürk and his comrades wanted for Turkey. I totally agree with what you say. He did all his reforms in stages, reacting to circumstances as well.

In Turkey we refer to kemalism as "Atatürkçülük". When you say it that way it does not sound much like an ideology, but rather as recognizing and implementing Atatürk's ideals. Atatürk obviously did not come up with kemalism, apparently we did. We seem to have "tried" over simplify Atatürk's ideas into an ideological framework. I stress "tried" because it failed, unfortunately. You now see that every political party in Turkey is trying to further their interests by exploiting Atatürk’s legacy. I mean c’mon the Justice Party claim to have 100% support for Atatürk’s vision… nothing but lies.

What Atatürk wanted was a modernized secular state: Its people would be innovative, stoic and well educated. there would be democracy and justice for all, its people would no longer be fooled by religious teachings etc. Basically, Atatürk envisioned a respectable, westernized country. Did it happen? No…

Anyway, I hope I answered your question… :D
User avatar
By Thunderhawk
#1016229
Doomhammer wrote:What Atatürk wanted was a modernized secular state: Its people would be innovative, stoic and well educated. there would be democracy and justice for all, its people would no longer be fooled by religious teachings etc. Basically, Atatürk envisioned a respectable, westernized country. Did it happen? No…



Why?
Last edited by Thunderhawk on 28 Oct 2006 04:17, edited 1 time in total.
By kami321
#1016239
Basically, Atatürk envisioned a respectable, westernized country. Did it happen? No…

Hold on, why do you think so? Turkey is, as far as I know, one of the most secular and advanced Muslim nations, and it has been this way for a while. Of course Ataturk didn't make Turkey a world superpower, but come on, you've got to be realistic :) I think Ataturk, more or less achieved what he wanted.
User avatar
By Thunderhawk
#1016271
kami321 wrote: Turkey is, as far as I know, one of the most secular and advanced Muslim nations, and it has been this way for a while.



If your looking at Turkey as a secular westernized nation, why are you comparing it to Muslim nations, rather then comparing it to other secular western nations ?
By Vasili Schmidt
#1016368
I didn't bother reading Vasili's orignial article since it is an obvious piece of lousy propaganda.


How the fuck is any of this propaganda? It is a fact that Ataturk was just another bourgeois pig riding with nationalist slogans. He repressed communists and denied national rights to the Kurdish minority. He represented not the proletariat but strictly bourgeois interests. Ataturk's lone strength were his relatively friendly relations with Soviet Russia.
User avatar
By Cid
#1016492
How the fuck is any of this propaganda? It is a fact that Ataturk was just another bourgeois pig riding with nationalist slogans. He repressed communists and denied national rights to the Kurdish minority. He represented not the proletariat but strictly bourgeois interests. Ataturk's lone strength were his relatively friendly relations with Soviet Russia.


Lets look at your source... MIM or Maoist International Movement. LOL I am shure Chairman Mao knowes how to keep the proletarions happy, revolution after revolution, never ending, long live the cultural revolution :knife: :muha2:

Ataturk actually enjoyed great support from the proletarians, the great mass of the anatolian villagers and farmers. He actually defied the Ottoman political establishment and the religious establishment. Bolshevik Russia was the first country in the world to recognise the independant Turkish Republic. Many Bolsheviks saw Ataturks war of liberation within the scope of the proletarian revolutions, since it wasnt only aimed against the Foreign Occpation Forces but also against the rule of the Ottoman Empire.
User avatar
By Doomhammer
#1016531
Yes Turkey is a secular country and a pretty decent place to be. The problem is that Atatürk's reforms did not influence all. There was still a lot of resistrance to change (especially from religious groups and local land owners). Atatürk was able to put a lid on these groups (outlawing religious parties and arresting religious trouble makers). There were also these local uprising in the east (again the local land owners) who fought against the secular order. I think thats what vasili refered to as "Atatürk's brutal massacre of kurds" lol.

The problem is, despite Atatürk's succeses, after the 1950's there was a sort of reverse modernization in Turkey. The reason was that there were mass migrations from the rural areas of Anatolia to the major cities. Many of these people did not agree with Atatürk's vision and slowly but surely they started taking over. First the ezan was made arabic again (Atatürk decreed in 1932 that all mosques would deliver the ezan in Turkish), then the constitution altered etc. Then came many ultra-nationalistic/religious governmets and presidents. Today, Turkey is deeply troubled with religious issues (turban, secularism and whatnot) and terorism. The only institutions in Turkey that are still 100% "kemalist" are the M. of Foreign Affairs, the Board of Higher Education (YÖK) and the military, the new religious order has permeated through everything else. sigh...
User avatar
By Cid
#1016578
One of the problems is that the founder of the Republic is relied on heavily in the political discourse of Turkey. By binding his name and history to promote certain political views, eventually that name and history will corrupt. It is important for the Turkish nation to view Ataturk from a non-partisan perspective. In Turkey those who are committed to politics, should not brand certain persons, parties or institutions as kemalist, because the only kemalist to have existed is Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. If the Turkish nation wants to preserve the legacy of Ataturk, the Republic as a secular nation-state, most paradoxically they have to distance themselves from the personality cult. Use the constitution of the Republic as fixation to preserve the secularity rather then the personality, because the constitution is a tool the personality is not.

I have my deepest respect for Mustafa Kemal Ataturk for both his historical achievements and his ideas. If the Turkish nation is going to respect his legacy, the Republic, rather then keeping his image and history artificially alive in the political discourse, they should let him rest in peace.

Regards

Cid
By Vasili Schmidt
#1016935
Lets look at your source... MIM or Maoist International Movement.


It's posted on the Maoist International Movement, but this document is a translation of material published by Turkish Maoists called Partizan:

http://www.partizan.org/

Many Bolsheviks saw Ataturks war of liberation within the scope of the proletarian revolutions, since it wasnt only aimed against the Foreign Occpation Forces but also against the rule of the Ottoman Empire.


Bolsheviki sympathized with Ataturk out of hatred for the Entente which at the time were arming counterrevolutionary gangs and directly occupying Russian territory.
By kami321
#1017435
arming counterrevolutionary gangs and directly occupying Russian territory.

:lol: which were?

Oh sorry I must be forgetting that every political movement unauthorized by the Kremlin automatically becomes counter-revolutionary. And since all of Europe is technically Russian territory, Turkey definately occupies some of it..
By Vasili Schmidt
#1017711
Oh sorry I must be forgetting that every political movement unauthorized by the Kremlin automatically becomes counter-revolutionary.


To the contrary. USSR history sympathizes with Ataturk. I dissent from this view in that I see Ataturk as a fascist, bourgeois serving thug who murdered workers, communist vangaurds and Kurds. Soviet history praises Ataturk for secluarization and social reforms. There is high sympathy for the Turkish war of liberation against the Entente imperialists. Greeks, for instance, have a completely different anti-Turkish view of Ataturk's post-Ottoman military campaigns.

And since all of Europe is technically Russian territory, Turkey definately occupies some of it..


Turks did occupy parts of the North Caucusus which today are indisputably Russian.
By kami321
#1017718
Turks did occupy parts of the North Caucusus which today are indisputably Russian.

No, your facts are wrong. Ottoman Empire occupied northern caucasus, not Ataturk's Turkey.
Besides, northern caucasus is disputably Russian.

This is a story about a woman who was denied adequ[…]

Yes, it does. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M[…]

World War II Day by Day

May 22, Wednesday Bletchley Park breaks Luftwaf[…]

He may have gotten a lot more votes than Genocide[…]