The intellectuals and the struggle in Turkey

[ozgurluk at xs4all.nl]

Subject: The intellectuals and the struggle in Turkey
From: Press Agency Ozgurluk <ozgurluk at xs4all.nl>


THE STATE OF LAW, FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND UNDERSTANDING OUR PEOPLE AND
OUR COUNTRY

Words like "clean society" and "a state of law" are frequently used
nowadays.  The state of law is demanded in unison... But what is it, a
state of law? When it comes, will all problems be solved like with
some kind of magic? The interpretation of such notions is
important. Notions like these can describe a problem of the people
concretely and precisely, but facts can be twisted as well, the
consciousness of the people could be confused. For a long time,
notions like freedom of speech and a state of law have only played a
minor role in our country.

We demand freedom for our country and our people. We demand an
independent and a democratic country. The legitimacy of such demands
is obvious.

There can not be independence in a system of exploitation and
cruelty. Our demands are democratic demands which reject a exploiting
and cruel system. What does the notion "state of law" mean? In itself,
it means nothing.

"We want a state of law", they say, referring to European countries as
an example "where such things do not happen". Will they really seize
to exist in such a state of law? How does a civic, imperialist state
really look like? Don't there exist gangs like the one from Susurluk?
Of course there are. Were the "Gladios" not discovered there? "But
they were exposed", one might say, but one could also say that they
managed for years to hide their existence. And who can guarantee us
that new Gladios do not exist? The prime ministers, several members of
parliament and the chiefs of the state security services knew about
the existence of the Gladios from the beginning. The stomach of an
"ideal" state of law was apparently big enough to digest it
all. Indeed, the abstract "state of law" does not exist. Justice,
that's the "legalised will" of the ruling classes.  Within the
existing bourgeois class system, demanding a state of law within the
framework of the system means legitimising the system. However well
the system of the rules is designed, in case of a threatening
organised people's movement, all kinds of oppression, intimidation and
cruelty will be legalised. For instance, in the European states which
are presented as examples, laws exist which can easily stand
comparison with the Anti-Terror Law in our own country.  The only
reason why they are seldom applied lies in the fact that there are no
organised people's movements in these countries which are able to wage
a revolutionary struggle.

When we demand a really democratic and independent country, we need to
define these notions carefully. When we are really serious about these
demands, we have to show the people the right road to achieve
them. The "intellectuals" have an important task in this. It's no sign
of education, it's an expression of ignorance or cowardice to
re-interpret notions, or developing new notions, to justify the
violence of the system.

Freedom of speech is a democratic demand, but...

The system is paralysed. To free itself from this paralysis, it falls
back on the only method it knows: violence. Some petite bourgeois
intellectuals and members of legal parties, who still have
difficulties with really understanding the country and the people,
close their eyes for reality, really believing that "freedom of
speech" can solve everything. We often see statements of such people
in which they claim that "all this happens because there is no freedom
of speech".

Although they demand freedom of speech, they are still backward
because they have no thoughts about changing the system. This
backwardness is already reflected in their definition of "thought
crime". They condemn thousands of revolutionary and patriotic
prisoners, their ideas, their justified and legitimate struggle, they
exclude them and they only way they try to solve this problem of the
"thought crime" is by writing books.

In essence they only care about the freedom of a handful of
intellectuals. If they would watch carefully, they would see it
precisely fits the interests of the oligarchy.

Are the prisoners behind bars because they carried out their actions
for their own personal interests? Why did those who are now in prison
go on the streets on MayDay?

The intellectuals, who look for a solution within the system, go as
far as founding legal parties which do not represent a radical
alternative to the system. They are attacked by fascism also. To
protect themselves against this, to refuse to go on the streets and
they even forbid their supporters to do so.  How can a right be gained
with such an attitude? Imprisoned in the system, they are afraid to
fight. They act and think within the borders, set by the system.

In reality, we can not speak of "freedom of speech" in our
country. The contradiction between those who rule and those who are
ruled has reached a point at which fascism has become afraid because
resistance against the system is growing among all segments of the
population. The people do not hope anymore that the system parties
will find solutions for their problems. This was also recognised and
stated by the bourgeois press and some bourgeois-liberal
politicians. The bourgeois press is full with statistics and reports,
stating that "the system is bankrupt" and "the people is separating
from the system".  And at exactly this point, they want to stop the
people: "There is no problem which can not be solved by
discussions". Really? What problems have been solved till now by
discussions? How serious are those who say that "freedom of speech
will be guaranteed, all problems will be solved by discussions"?
Caution. The real spokespersons of the intellectuals and reformists
are the bourgeois ideologues and those who have been responsible for
years that the problems are not being solved and that the freedom of
speech has been restricted. The intellectuals and the reformists are
nothing but their mouthpiece.

For this reason all parties and intellectuals who claim to be left,
socialist, revolutionary and democratic should express the differences
between their views and those of the bourgeoisie when they speak about
the state of law and freedom.


The reality of the class struggles exists of vigorous battles, fought
with "an eye for an eye" and "a tooth for a tooth". When the
revolutionaries are now able to express their views without being
restricted by the system, this has only one reason: the legitimate and
justified struggle they wage. The people's struggle legitimates what
is not legal.

Those who do not know the truth about our country and our people can
not enlighten the people.

A sort of curtain separates their writings, their actions and their
art from the truth in our country. When we move this curtain a little,
we see despair, chaos and ignorance.

One of these intellectuals wrote in his column in a bourgeois paper a
piece called "I do not understand": "I do want to understand. I do
want to understand the people who blow up themselves. I try to
understand the crazy anger, the hatred which blew up this person and
four other young people, I try to understand the willingness of these
people to use violence. (...) We were forced to witness the decay of
society and the disappearances of people in press articles and in the
television news. We discussed it during open meetings, we wrote about
it in our articles. All these writings were dragged into this vigorous
battle. The struggle could not tolerate neutrality. They can only see
friends and enemies, one is either attacked as a traitor, or
congratulated as a hero. But in reality we would rather feel the need
to explain things, rather than to condemn them, without choosing one
of the sides (...)"

Is this thought, which they try to understand, really that twisted? Is
it really not understood or do the intellectuals not want to
understand it? Is it that hard to understand that it is the truth in
our country and the fight which sends our people to the front? Can a
result of the struggle be more natural?

There are facts we all know about. In our country, people are made
disappeared, they are tortured, killed, their villages are burned
down. The most moderate demands are met with bloodshed. There is a
state which burns down, which massacres, which rapes, which fills the
dungeons with people, which bans people.  There is a state which
violates its own justice. There is a state which directs the gangs of
Susurluk. Trillions are put in this fight.

On the other hand there is another fact. There are people who will not
bow for this inhuman practices and who give their lives to resist
these attacks. A young girl, Ayce Idil Erkmen. She sacrificed her life
for a free land and for the end of injustice, dying cell by cell in
the Death Fast... A young girl: Zeynep Kinaci. She blows up her own
body for her people which has been suffering for centuries... There
are many others who did things like that, and there are new Ayces and
Zeyneps... They fought and they fell... They prefer death to
surrender... These were heroic deeds, shocking the world, appealing to
the conscience of the people. The intellectuals try not to understand
this heroism, in stead they write stories about "terror", "people with
a problem", "no future", stories which are dictated to them by the
bourgeoisie. They really believe their own stories... This is the
so-called curtain, separating real life from the intellectuals.

It wasn't desperation which caused them to say "We will never
surrender", they weren't afraid of the torture centres either. They
represented the struggle and they had the courage to defend the
legitimacy of the struggle with their life.  It wasn't a lover who
caused them to pull the trigger, it wasn't blind violence.  It was the
anger they felt for their enemies who destroy the land and who exploit
the people. This anger was neither crazy, nor pointless... Did the
Death Fast not extend the hope, the honour and the dignity of
millions? Yes, this is obvious. When these facts are overlooked, the
events can not be understood. We can not explain anything when we do
not see that the state has started the war against the people and
sends thousands of youngsters into death, ostensibly to "prevent
further deaths". Can we really understand the pain of the mothers who
keep on searching for their sons and daughters day and night, despite
the truncheons, when we do not act against the disappearances? Can we
understand the worries of the unemployed, the homeless and those who
were forced to leave their villages when we do not look for the
causes? So how can we develop a definition of "thought crime"
according to bourgeois standards when all is obvious? How can an
abstract "freedom of speech" and an abstract "state of law" act
against these problems? A conduct which ignores these facts and
statements like "let us not take sides" are not intellectual. An
intellectual who acts in accordance with the exploiting and cruel
state in his thinking, his acts and his ideology should really
criticise himself.

Why do our intellectuals not show their internationalist solidarity
and their understanding when our country and our people are concerned?

Did we describe the struggle against Hitler as "blind violence"? Did
we ever wonder about the 15 year old Tanja who went to the gallows,
yelling at the Gestapo people? Yes, we learn a lot from books. We
learn from history. Using art as a means, we pay tribute to the
history of mankind. We watch a film, are impressed, think about it and
we agree with a lot of the statements. For instance, many
intellectuals have surely seen the movie "Salvador". There is a priest
in this movie, Romero, who said "Violence causes violence". He was
shot by the fascists. Was he wrong? Did you get agitated, did you
think "No, Romero, you were wrong. Your death was in vain"? When we
saw "Mother" (Maxim Gorki), did our hearts not beat for the mothers
and the prisoners or did the reality of this movie seem like a dream
in Turkey in 1996. In the movie "Braveheart", a young girl is raped on
her wedding day by the English and her body is buried in secret. Did
you not look at the fight of the Scottish against the British,
wondering? Do we not experience these things in our own country, day
by day? Are our people not kidnapped by the police, are they not raped
under torture, are we did the target of fascist bullets? So why is it
so hard to choose the right thing, to take a stand? Do we not feel the
sorrow of the people in our land, just as in these movies and novels?

Yes, we condemn the destruction of Palestine by Zionism, we condemn
the war cries of the imperialist in Bosnia and Africa, but what is our
stand in the same struggle which is wages on our soil? All is decided
at this point: which side are we on? Thinking like an intellectual
means: standing at the side of those who are right, it means producing
something for the people, it means feeling the people's pain in your
won heart.

"We need a revolution of emotions", Ahmet Altan (*) said. But neither
emotion nor good will suffice. We may not separate our emotions from
the events. The lack of solidarity, the estrangement and the
degeneration are products of the system itself... This filth is
defiling our feelings, it's stealing our values and our humanity,
things we need most. Here lies the mission of the intellectuals. The
intellectual opposes all this filth. Yes, we have to regain the lost
feelings, we have to become real human beings again. The liberation
struggle is a struggle for human feelings, human life, justice and
dignity. When an intellectual condemns the disappearances, he should
do so in front of Galatasaray. When he opposes the state council for
higher education, YOK, a university teacher should participate in the
boycott on November 6... When he knows the truth, he should say so
with a loud voice. Despite the punishments, the threats and the
censorship, he should write what he knows. He should say "It's enough"
to those who cause him pain and sorrow, who want to separate him from
his writings, his pens, his saz, his songs and his liberty. He should
do more than just speak. He must not denounce actions. The
intellectual should act himself, he should go out on the street, he
should organise the people, he should call the people to act against
the system. That's where our intellectuals have to use their talents,
their struggle and their struggle. "I'm in this struggle as well",
they should say. "I take part with my poem. my plays, my writings, my
music, my words, my knowledge, my conduct, my action!"

(*) Son of a delegate from the Turkish socialist party TIP in the
seventies.  Author and journalist for the daily paper Sabah.

-- 
Press-Agency Ozgurluk: http://www.xs4all.nl/~ozgurluk
Turkey Contra-Guerrilla-State: http://www.xs4all.nl/~ozgurluk/contrind/
Searchable Database: http://www.xs4all.nl/~ozgurluk/ml.html
KURTULUS HAFTALIK SIYASI GAZETE: http://www.kurtulus.com