WHY DID THE LEFT IN TURKEY CHOOSE TO COMMIT SUICIDE?

1-INTRODUCTION

The primary objective of this study is to evaluate the validity of leftist thought, actions, and policies in the present day; to examine new concepts and methods related to this; to determine whether the ideological defeat associated with the "end of history" narrative is indeed real and, if so, to discuss its causes; to analyse the shortcomings of the left in terms of policy-making and alternative creation; and to evaluate the surprising dynamics behind the rapid integration of the left into the capitalist system.

The inspiration behind this text, the catalyst for its creation, is Carl Gustav Jung's statement: "Loneliness does not mean that there are no people around you. It is when a person feels unable to convey what they value to others, or when they hold views that others find impossible, that they feel lonely." Therefore, it should be noted that this article is free from prejudice, faithful to historical facts, and contains personal opinions.  In preparing the text, the methods discussed in the works of Kruger and Dunning were not ignored.  The theses discussed below were therefore written with knowledge and reason, adhering to its fundamental principles. The thoughts of other individuals were not ignored, and poor choices were not made to prevent incorrect and incomplete information from being engraved in memory.

The leftist ideology claims to own and protect the moral definitions of values such as equality, freedom, justice, and individual liberty, which it claims as its own. However, its inconsistency in relation to these values is evident in its failure to translate its critical stance towards right-wing thinking into an active political policy. In this context, questioning the left's loyalty to its own values and addressing the lack of policies to protect these values forms the main thrust of this study.

The study will evaluate ideological transformations through different historical perspectives such as "History Begins Now" and "History Will Always Be Rewritten," which I have attempted to present in response to Francis Fukuyama's definition of "The End of History." Furthermore, the historical, sociological, and ideological evolution of leftist thought across different continents will be briefly addressed, analysing its global affinities, deviations, and contradictions. Finally, the stance of the leftist intelligentsia in Turkey towards social, geographical, and political changes will be examined. At the core of ideologies lie passions. Ultimately, every political approach has the potential to create its own passions without adhering to ideological loyalty. Because they possess the ability to easily adapt to the universality-continuity paradigm, they may exhibit a tendency to dominate other authorities. This domination is legitimised through the phenomenon of reality and vitality, breaking away from the unconscious structure. Without questioning the moral structure of the means of achieving dominance, individuals are made to submit to this structure and feel a need for it.

For this reason, ideological apparatuses are defined as a mystical power by their members, while becoming a demonised figure for their opponents. This situation can be explained using the metaphor of gargoyle statues: placed at the highest points of churches, these statues are used to ward off evil, while also symbolising that fear lurks at the threshold. Today, ideological apparatuses have similarly reached an immutable level of maturity and become structures that establish control through fear.

In Europe, leftist thought has largely lost its historical fervour and political actors. Turkey, as a young republic, has shown an emotional attachment to the continuity of this movement, formally adopting its ideological definitions but essentially failing to internalise them. This situation has made the existence of leftist thought in Turkey debatable. At the global level, the concept of the nation state is disintegrating, and in a multipolar world, national identities and borders are becoming increasingly complex. The concepts of the state and country, which were deified in the past, are giving way to the deification of the individual.

This transformation has become more pronounced with the acquisition of religious significance by individual political ambitions. For example, the political practice of US President Donald Trump can be considered a concrete example of the sanctification of the individual. Today, the fundamental motivation for employers and workers is the pursuit of material gain. The structures representing these interest groups are shaped according to the ideological ground they serve. In this context, the left has remained in a determined rather than a determining position. Frequently invoking the concept of freedom, leftist thought has historically failed to demonstrate loyalty to its own values through writers, artists, scientists, literary figures, philosophers, and clergy in the face of ideologies that have gained supremacy. Divided between racial and religious political ambitions, it has squandered the ideal of freedom among factions.

The left's intellectual impotence is laid bare by its tendency to define and embrace radicalised communities of uneducated or modernly educated individuals, who harbour expectations of immediate results, as "freedom fighters". This study analyses the current crisis in leftist thought at the ideological, sociological and political levels, examining the transformations taking place both globally and specifically in Turkey. The left's disloyalty to its own values, its inadequacy in policy-making, and its inability to resist capitalist integration are seen as signs of ideological disintegration. In this context, the left needs to be redefined and its capacity to produce alternatives appropriate to today's conditions needs to be developed.

2-WHAT IS SOL? IS IT A NECESSITY OR A LUXURY?

Many years ago, in 1789, at a time close to the French Revolution, when the heads of the ruthless monarchies and colonial powers of the past were being sent to the guillotine, the French National Assembly saw the nobility seated to the king's right and the commoners to his left. Those seated to the king's right were called right-wingers, while those to his left were called left-wingers.   There is no doubt that the opposite could also have been true. Those sitting to the king's left were those who opposed the Ancien Régime and the Bourbon monarchy, who supported the revolution and the establishment of a democratic republic, and who supported the secularisation of society, while those sitting to his right were those who supported the traditional institutions of the Ancien Régime.  The religious counterpart of the definition of left is more frightening and contains much exaggeration. In the Christian understanding of religion, the struggle between congregations and denominations has brought forth ideas that are not their own. For this reason, it has been used in Western occultism to describe religions that are considered dirty and immoral. Its Latin meaning comes from sinister. What is evil is dark. Among the Jews, the word "smowl" (left) was used to mean dark.

The leftists have always tried to appear as supporters of the common people. According to them, the common people were the oppressed, their labour stolen. Those representing the common people were the unemployed, the uneducated, the nomadic, those without land. The issue of land ownership and property arises here. For leftists positioning themselves against the aristocracy, it would be right to oppose the existing hierarchy that allowed society to function according to the king's expectations and to defend equality. That is what they did. At this point, those who had adopted factionalism as their motto were fighting not only to overthrow the king but also to seize power and its benefits. The power and authority of the war would lie with the group that possessed a destructive fashion, that would rule their own political hysteria, but in a more subjective situation, it would be the side of the dispossessed and the unemployed who were eager to see themselves as supporters of this group. In this context, the leftist idea itself did not create an ideological definition for itself solely through economic and social revolutions. On the contrary, as a force, it resorted to radical actions that were particularly offensive in nature rather than defensive.

Those who disrupted the order, once they became the new rulers, attacked other newcomers who disrupted the order because they disrupted it. To define the left, they added to this complex definition by categorising themselves as leftist. Marxists, anarchists, nihilists, social democrats, liberals, etc. saw themselves as an integral and complementary part of the leftist concept. The term left became the equivalent of liberalism in the United States and republicanism in France.  

The collapse of the Soviet Union, coupled with the dominance of capitalism and globalists, has led to outcomes that would have prompted Fukuyama to write his essay on The End of History. While I agree with Fukuyama's thesis, I believe that history has not come to an end and that change and transformation are constant. Capitalism has triumphed. It will now wage a war with its own internal dynamics. Those who seek to frame the sides of this war in leftist jargon will be defeated.

Change will henceforth be a different shade of liberalism and capitalism. Although leftist thought itself stands against capitalism, with its socialist hue, it will lack the power and capacity for social and political action.  Only romantic revolutionary rhetoric will remain. Ultimately, the collapse of Russia and China's challenge to the world with the capitalist model at this point are the result of this.

The labour movement, socialism, anarchism, communism, and Marxism that came to the fore in the 20th century failed to offer clear critiques of classical capitalism in their own era. The feminist movement, LGBT rights, abortion, multiculturalism, anti-war, freedom movements, xenophobia, and environmental movements have positioned themselves in a certain place. Leftist thought inevitably continues to exist in a romanticised world, clinging to past habits. It positions itself solely to exist in opposition to power and its institutions. 

If that were not the case, contradictions and complexities would not arise in the geographical naming of the leftist movement.  In the United Kingdom, the Labour Party is globalist and capitalist. In contrast, the Zimbabwe African National Union staunchly defends the socialist economy. Attempts to ignore what exists, efforts to turn a blind eye, ultimately reveal that what the Left really needs is liberalism. Without liberalism, it will be unable to produce ideas that oppose capitalism itself.

The end of history has changed the definition of left-wing ideology in countries. It has been redefined as social democrats, liberal socialists, and democratic socialists. Left-wing movements in Turkey have also followed free market capitalist policies.  For example, in Turkey, after the War of Independence, the leftist movement emerged as a structure that took on the role of spokesperson for the single-party system established by the founding cadres. Neither capitalism nor socialism proposed a mixed model with the "Third Worldist" school of thought. It is understandable that the founding cadres of the Republic would make such a proposal. As a nation emerging from destruction, the capitalist model of the West was the arena in which it could position itself. However, despite the efforts to build a strong homeland after the war, a protective psychology came into play and adopted a dual political strategy. This strategy continues to this day.

The geography and terminology chosen by the left as its refuge have been the working class, the unemployed, poor states and regions. In accordance with the principle of opposition, it has assumed the identity of preserving the area chosen by capitalism as its colony and has moved into a position of action. However, it will be seen that this positioning is to be on the side of distribution as the owner of a new paradigm. Freedom and social justice are too important to be left to the leftist ideology.

Here, the freedom defended by the left does not only mean liberation from political oppression.  It means liberation from much more dangerous institutions, administrations and their organs. This movement has become a structure that anarchists in particular have embraced with admiration, and that nihilists in particular worship to the extent of celebrating with fireworks. Marxists have taken a different position on this issue by keeping their own institutions and organs within the state.

The definition of freedom in left-wing ideology is positioned in a frightening place. Freedom is inextricably linked to liberation from social constraints.  The reason for social constraints is the organs of the state. Ultimately, the capitalist state is the state of the ruling class. The socialist state, however, is the state of the people. Perhaps this is why the Soviets collapsed, who knows. Concepts such as social justice have disappeared from the discourse of the left, which no longer mentions equality before the law or claims related to citizenship. Prioritising overcoming privileges, hierarchies, and the unequal distribution of goods as a result of its own ideological traumas is merely a means of compensating for its own losses.

By the end of history, the desire of Marxists and anarchists to abolish private property had lost its appeal as a romantic expression of equality in the eyes of the people and individuals. The leftist ideology seeks to sacrifice the existence of the just humanitarian struggle against wars and genocides to its own understanding of equality and freedom, aiming to establish itself as a powerful myth in the position of its defender.

The stances taken in the Russia-Ukraine war, the Syrian civil war, cross-border migrations, and the policies pursued by Western romantic leftists towards the events in Gaza are nothing more than these mythical endeavours.

Left-wing thinkers have mythical patterns. Right-wing ideas are irrelevant to them, simple and ordinary. They are seen not as opponents to be debated, but as an illness to be avoided. Left-wing thinkers give abstract meaning to the concepts of equality, freedom and justice, and their professed allegiances are false. If this were not the case, their response to the humanitarian crises in the world would be more concrete. An abstract ideal has always been kept at the ready for their purposes, as if it were a meaningful reality. Their depictions of an imaginary social order have been idealised purely in the abstract.

Ideological definitions are abstract, but the areas in which they position themselves are concrete. Their concrete attempts at action have always ended in failure. The Soviet Union and China are prime examples of this. Today, we cannot see the concrete definitions of the ideal society they have idealised since the past. They have only laid the groundwork for radical struggles fuelled by blind faith. It should not be forgotten that not everything done in the name of equality is always good. Most of the time, the concept of equality will be a sick part of injustice. For this reason, leftist ideas expect those in power to erase other values in the name of equality. 

The crucial point that the capitalist world must understand is this: the class differences that the Left views as its source of sustenance are not significant enough to translate into political power. Capitalist and liberal states need to understand that class differences must be eliminated in order to resolve political conflicts. Market forces must demonstrate and provide evidence that individual development and increased social productivity will improve incomes and living conditions in the long term.

Still, let us not be unfair. Among left-wing thinkers, rather than radical reactions, it is understandable and acceptable that they advocate for the poor sections of society to form unions and for redistribution-focused public intervention to be at the centre of the production process, given the contradictions within the capitalist system itself. However, today we can see that unions have been defeated by history. The definition of market forces no longer belongs solely to employers. Political institutions, trade unions, businesspeople and, ultimately, the state collectively embrace this power. The point of contention between the right and the left is based on the separation of the redistribution focus from the public authority's ability to intervene. I am unsure how accurate it is to consider the principles of justice, freedom, and equality as the subject of leftist thought for this reason. Among the primary duties of states, the most important are eliminating inequality and ensuring justice and reliability. As long as they achieve these, they will be strong and reliable. 

With the industrial revolution, social inequality, the problem of redistribution of goods, and the relationships between capital and labour, profit and wages, and employers and employees became more complex. Taking advantage of this opportunity, certain ideologies made the conflict over these concepts even more complicated.

The leftist ideology has embraced the idea of abolishing the concept of ownership between those who own the means of production and earn income from them, and those who do not own them but still earn income. It has taken refuge in the idea that inequality stems from the unequal distribution of capital ownership. Its greatest intellectual error lies in viewing capital owners and workers as homogeneous groups. It has failed to recognise the significance of the inequality of income earned by workers and has not taken it into account. It has assessed inequality solely in terms of capital over labour. Leftist thought has considered the situation where a portion of the income generated goes to capital as the basis of social injustice.

Leftist ideology positions itself on the basis of norms of contradiction. It has exhibited nonconformist behaviour (behaviour that does not conform to societal rules). It has not embraced the values and priorities held by society and has not behaved in accordance with societal rules and values. The cultural values and moral norms possessed by countries ensure that their citizens act within these principles. Individuals thus derive happiness from being like everyone else.

The division of societies into elites and minorities is determined not only by economic values but also by social and moral norms. Viewing this division as a class division is seen as an effort to position and interpret the issue solely in an economic context. However, although this contains a partial truth, citizens' living conditions, cultural skills and perspectives, moral norms, and all kinds of beliefs play a role in the formation of this difference.

The leftist ideology ignores this principle and makes no effort beyond obstructing the truth. The romanticism of this endeavour is too valuable to be confined to literature, stories, poetry, novels, and the performing arts. The leftist ideology either failed to understand this or refused to understand it. The truth lies in seeking out the different views within the different classes of society. It is the duty of citizens not to accept the division that remains hidden in the minds of pseudo-intellectuals, the unqualified and those who will never be qualified, in intellectual life. It is necessary to remind the working masses that they are being treated unfairly and that they should know that they truly have noble minds today.

The fact that people today gravitate towards different political movements has paved the way for them to interpret their definition of morality in line with these views. Being conservative does not make you virtuous and moral, nor does being liberal make you immoral and lacking in virtue. The leftist idea that a healthy and free society is possible is therefore unfounded and unrealistic. Ultimately, belonging to the working class does not determine whether one is liberal or conservative. Therefore, the oppressed will easily define the oppressors as immoral and themselves as moral. The masses do not discard the old moral order to replace it with a new one. They discard it because they desire a life free from moral rules. Today, in other parts of the world, the parties involved in human tragedies designate themselves as moral and others as immoral. Terrorist groups that embrace radical left-wing actions and later change their identity, evolving from a Marxist orientation to a nationalist discourse, can commonly be labelled freedom fighters. Especially for left-wing thought, which sees the concept of the nation-state as the main source of violence, it can take positions that view groups aiming to destroy the state they consider the enemy as heroes.

Those who see themselves as the intellectual elite of this group belittle the institutional structure of power and attempt to legitimise the terrorism of the minority group. The leftist idea of seeing itself as the sole protector of rights, as revolutionary, is merely an illusion and a mask.  Time has been set upon their defeat. They have no reality to put forward as true thought.  The masks they have constructed for themselves, without examining the reflections and causes of life's necessities, must be removed. Ultimately, what matters is liberalism's attitude, which is in line with human nature. Its shortcomings and unhealthy implementation are a situation that will be renewed within the system itself. The left will never write a new history. From now on, history will only move in different shades of liberalism.

3-WHERE IS THE LEFT FINDING ITS PLACE IN EUROPE?

The old left is finished, long live the new left!

The concept of the new left is used in a manner specific to the geography, historical and social traumas of countries in Europe, Latin America and China. The concept of the New Left is a term used in Western Europe and North America in the late 1950s and early 1960s, a period when radical rhetoric found its way among students and when conflicts were not limited to capitalism but were particularly intense among left-wing groups.

The new left has essentially sought to establish itself through ideological, cultural and theoretical discourse. It emerged particularly as a voice of dissent against the hegemony of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Although they may not admit it, we can say that they have adopted a behavioural model that reflects the capitalist spirit of the West. The New Left has incorporated liberalism into its programme, unconsciously defining and describing itself in terms of liberalism rather than the oppressive authority of leaders such as Stalin and Nikita Khrushchev.

This new mixture gave rise to liberalism with a social democratic appearance. The Cold War accelerated this process. The new left no longer pursued equality and freedom, but began to produce other values appropriate to the space in which it positioned itself. Environmentalism and women's rights, feminist discourse, and now animal rights and LGBT rights have been set as new values to strive for. The left was now buried in history. It took quite some time for this to be clearly articulated. We must accept that the left in

Europe has attempted to redefine itself in the very geography where liberal thought was born. However, it never developed a theory of its own. Merely articulating the points emphasised by liberalism on human values, and the romanticism inherent in the theoretical and experimental effectiveness of the options it created, was enough for them. The discourse defended by the Frankfurt School is essentially part of liberalism's self-criticism. What the left says is not a different assessment. Industrial capitalism, humanity's consumerist greed, the control of mass media, and the manipulation of society were themselves part of capitalism's self-criticism aimed at revision within itself.

UNITED            KINGDOM

The 1830s were a period in the United Kingdom marked by increased industrialisation, the potential for violence in working-class actions, and the rise of liberal influence. Enlightenment-era universal human values began to be replaced by national, gender, and class differences. While liberals focused on individual rights, socialists defended social and collective rights. Developments in railway construction between 1835 and 1837 led to an increase in worker employment, which in turn led to political pressure.

Subsequently, the House of Commons became the political authority representing them. The labour movement known as Chartism formed a force of pressure during this period. 

Supporters of the Chartist movement included factory workers, members of the lower-middle class, and artisans. Although it appeared to be a working-class movement, it never took on a left-wing identity. The Reform Act was passed in 1832 to suppress the violent actions that accompanied Chartism. The concept of citizenship was broadened, and tradesmen and artisans gained the right to vote. However, workers still did not have the right to vote. As always, the merchants were the first winners of social resistance.  The workers' struggle only benefited the tradesmen. The Factory Act reduced working hours, and factories were placed under government supervision. The Poor Law was enacted to provide support to the poor. However, due to the insufficient opening up of job opportunities, these efforts were hampered, and the working class grew in numbers and became politically active.

The new leftist ideology is attempting to recapture its former glory in today's United Kingdom. The Labour Party has distanced itself from leftist rhetoric and adopted a centrist political stance. Their response to the events in Gaza, in particular, has completely alienated them from the left. The Labour Party has lost its mission. This helplessness has led to efforts to reorganise new left-wing parties. New left-wing ideas have begun to emerge, organised through the website "Yourparty.uk". The dust has been wiped off the rhetoric of the past and brought back onto the stage.  The mass redistribution of wealth and power, the protection of public services, and the reintroduction of human rights demands are just a few examples. Four pro-Palestinian independent candidates have increased the Green Party's seats by beating their Labour Party rivals. The environmental wing of the new left has also begun to strengthen by finding a new path for itself. The support they find among young voters continues to grow.

FRANCE

During the 1830s in France, a significant diversification was observed in terms of both labour movements and socialist thought. The 1830 Revolution, carried out by the liberal opposition alongside the workers, led to a redefinition of the concept of revolution in Europe. Revolutionary organisations that emerged throughout the 1820s in various regions and countries, particularly Italy, were mostly small and limited in structure, focusing on changing power through coups. The July Revolution, however, brought with it a redefinition of revolution as a mass phenomenon. 

The period from 1830 to 1848 saw the rise of the liberal opposition and the bourgeoisie. The new regime wasted no time in enacting a series of laws restricting freedom of association and expression. In the months and years following the July Revolution of 1830, the labour movement showed significant growth. During this period, artisans and factory workers had not yet formed a common labour movement; it was not until the last quarter of the 19th century that a class movement encompassing all workers emerged. In contrast, from 1830 onwards, it can be observed that class identity discourse came to the fore more than professional identity.

The 1830s in France were a period that witnessed significant developments not only in the labour movement and socialist thought, but also in revolutionary and republican movements. The republican movements of this period did not merely put forward demands relating to the constitutional regime or political mechanisms, but also addressed socio-economic demands necessitated by the nature of the political regime.

Republicanism, on the other hand, was a kind of working-class utopia, and unlike other utopias, it had the characteristic of being a revolutionary utopia. The 1830 Revolution had essentially erupted as a result of the republic/monarchy opposition. After the failure of the republican uprising, republican movements chose to become more radical.  Auguste Caunes, a republican writer, attempted to reorganise the Friends of the People from August 1832 onwards; with the influence of newly joined workers, he endeavoured to steer the organisation towards a more radical left-wing orientation.

The 1830s in Europe were years that saw major advances in industrial capitalism on the one hand, and mass movements gaining great importance on the other. In industrial cities such as Lyon, the deepening of exploitation and class contradictions led to large-scale demonstrations by various components of the working class (artisans and industrial workers); the labour press of the period also became an important medium for the organisation of workers. The labour movements of the 1830s did not merely put forward economic demands; the right to vote in Britain and the demand for a republic in France were among the most important causes championed by the labour movements. Rather than processes that hindered workers' political participation, they acted on economic-class criteria such as the tax-based restricted electoral system. It was not until the 1840s that mass movements, republicanism, socialist thought and philosophical criticism became more closely integrated.

Radical left-wing parties are those that define themselves as going beyond social democratic leftism. It is precisely here that the two left-wing paths diverge. While the radical left wants to change every aspect of capitalism, social democrats have positioned themselves more in terms of their political discourse on democracy, participatory local government democracy, and defending the rights of unemployed and migrant workers.  Radical left-wing parties are more hostile to liberal democracy and accuse social democrats of compromising with the "bourgeoisie". The far left has remained marginal in most places, except in France, Portugal and Greece. This void has generally been filled by parties from the Trotskyist and Maoist traditions, which define themselves as "revolutionary".   These developments have positioned social democrats as an alternative to both totalitarian communism and neo-liberal social democracy. Today's French left has lost its practical ability to provide for the economic conditions of its own people. Discourse has progressed on populist concerns. The French people, like those in power, have remained indifferent to human rights and events in the Middle East. Perhaps the most romantic aspect of the left lies hidden in the identity of this geography.

4-THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND LATIN AMERICA ON THE LEFT

The American Left generally finds its place among groups that are aligned with the Democratic Party within its own political spectrum. It is not entirely left-wing. In fact, it would be inaccurate to define it as left-wing. It is a term used to describe egalitarian groups within the economic, political and cultural structure of the United States of America. Left-wing groups have been given opportunities to integrate into capitalism within the Democratic or Republican parties. Although not very active, anarchists and communists have also been able to find some space for themselves. We can say that Marxist leaders and ideologues have found more space for themselves after Trump.

Zohran Mamdani, who recently became Mayor of New York, won the election with the support of the Democrats as an immigrant who advocates socialist principles. Mamdani, who stated, "And if there is a way to truly frighten a despot, it is to remove the conditions that empower him," won the vast majority of votes as a Muslim socialist politician who challenged the existing order. It was not his left-wing rhetoric that won him these votes. Trump's harsh immigration policy and his consistently confrontational authoritarian persona on the international stage played a significant role in this.

Ultimately, his behaviour at the Trump meeting at the White House showed him not to be someone who genuinely objects, but rather someone who can work comfortably with the Republicans. Although left-wing ideology was present in the United States in the 19th century, it is clear that there is no genuinely left-wing party in the current situation.  Within the Democratic Party, there are left-wing factions, as well as small parties such as the Green Party, the Communist Party USA, the Socialist and Liberation Party, the American Communist Party, the Workers' World Party, the Christian Democratic Socialist Party, and the American Solidarity Party.

Socialist concepts have never been compatible with the values of the United States of America. As the bastion of capitalism, it has left no room for socialism to thrive. Even the concept of the New Left is based on radical democratic traditions. The absence of a feudal past among the American working class has prevented leftist concepts from taking root in later periods. In contrast, the Red Squads, which hunted communists in order to suppress worker uprisings, became a serious instrument of repression. Slavery and racial discrimination also prevented the working class from coming into existence. The Second World War was made illegal by the Smith Act to prevent the strengthening of left-wing groups. In the 1960s, the FBI's COINTELPRO programme dismantled radical left-wing groups, making it impossible for them to gain strength.

 In the Americas, however, the situation has taken a very different course, leading to the formation of left-wing governments. Following Trump, opposition identities are being strengthened and organised to remove left-wing groups from the scene. Throughout history, Latin America has experienced turbulent political and social events. The United States has continued to secretly pursue its unofficial war policies in these regions. Nowadays, however, there is talk of direct intervention. It is possible to say that such an action would cause irreparable destruction.

The main thesis of the article is that "Capitalism should not hesitate to reveal its own left-wing and oppositional identity, and sometimes even to put it ahead of itself. Its vital existence and power are only possible through this controllable principle of reactive intervention.  Therefore, the United States must align its authority and the continuity of its power with this principle of controllable reactive intervention.

 Since 2019, the rising left in Latin America has come to power due to the flawed, corrupt, and poorly managed neoliberal policies of the current governments, yet they themselves have demonstrated the same poor management. The left's greatest failure in Latin America has been its inability to manage its relations with capital, the financial world and the media through compromise, its failure to implement liberal policies, and its insistence on continuing with classic socialist rhetoric. By stubbornly pursuing its political policies on this platform, it has radicalised the traditional conservative right.

Although the concept of the new left attempts to portray left-wing leaders as moderate, it is clear that the United States does not view them as having changed their authoritarian identities.   If Latin American left-wing leaders had confronted historical realities and supplemented their liberal economic models with policies that ensured social justice, we could have spoken of a new leftist movement. The recent emergence of female politicians can be seen as a response to the Latin American people's desire for this. The new left appears to be quite far from having the structure to achieve this. 

We have seen that China's growing sphere of influence in Latin America has enabled the rise of the new Left. However, given that the relationship between China and left-wing governments has progressed in a short-term manner, it would be incorrect to assume that this will be sustained. The only realistic solution for Latin America is to establish close relations with US investors. The most appropriate strategy for the United States is to follow the principle of controllable reactive intervention. In other words, allow opposition. Increase investment through liberal economic relations. Block popular opposition.

 5-ARE CHINA AND RUSSIA THE OWNERS OF LEFT-WING VALUES?

China's transformation occurred abruptly and rapidly, driven by the emergence of individual leadership. The reforms that began in 1978 have enabled it to become the world's most powerful and disruptive economy today. The Chinese Communist Party has an authoritarian institutional identity, and while its leaders were obliged to follow the rules, Xi Jinping's rise to power in 2013 saw the emergence of individual leadership, and the party's principles were abolished. In 2004, Chinese protesters were sentenced to three years in prison for distributing pamphlets titled "Mao Forever Our Leader" on the anniversary of Mao Zedong's birth in Zhengzhou. This transformation in China is a clear declaration that communism has lost. History has left the suicide of communist paradigms in the hands of communism itself.

It must be acknowledged that the greatest mistake of our capitalism is entrusting the will of authority to a single individual. The most significant harm of this is that poor decisions affect all other countries and regions. China has pursued the concept of New Left. We can consider that the emergence of New Leftism resulted from the 1997 Asian financial crisis, the US bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade in 1999, and the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests. The New Left should be seen as a critique of the traditional stance towards those who wish to interpret socialist ideology through different theories.

The relationship between the new left in China and Maoism and capitalism is complex. It is trying to find definitions within two different schools of thought. While it wants capitalism to be rejected, it also desires capitalism to be run according to socialist values. Cui Zhiyuan, who uses game theory in China, was influenced by James Meade's liberal socialism approach in his article "Institutional Innovation and the Second Thought Liberation" and wrote texts such as "Xiaokang Socialism: A Petit Bourgeois Manifesto" in this vein. The new left in China has followed Cui Zhiyuan's ideas in its liberal socialist definition. This definition clearly describes the social change in China, where economic reform has led to the market economy becoming the dominant economic system. Cui Zhiyuan believes that socialism and capitalism should not necessarily be seen as opposites. It would be more realistic to define this concept as follows. Socialism and capitalism can never be considered opposing ideas. Socialism is a controlling force that emerged from within capitalism itself for the purpose of effectively and systematically implementing capitalism. In other words, it is an essential part of capitalism.

The New Left cannot be considered separately from Chinese Nationalism. Economic reforms, the market economy, and the growing social inequality between coastal and inland regions, as well as between rich and poor, are becoming increasingly powerful. One-man economic reforms and devalued capitalist models will lead to the radical strengthening of the New Left. The greatest advantage of the New Left movement is that it does not treat capitalism as a direct attack and rejection. Although they view capitalism with suspicion, they do not ignore its impact on the country's strengthening. This brings us back to the main thesis of the article.

Regardless of where we are geographically, we must not forget that the principle of controllable reactive intervention is what makes capitalist models healthy. The difference between the New Left in China and the New Left in the West is very significant. While the New Left in China addresses the government, the New Left in the West objects to governments having a monopoly. Chinese capitalism is based on state capitalism. At this point, it is possible to say that China's issue is no longer its desire to be the most powerful country in a multipolar world, but rather its desire to evolve towards a new model that will affect the system as a whole. After the passage of time since the Cultural Revolution, the romantic communism of the Neo-Maoists, who wear blue military uniforms and have not strayed from the path of the past, is now a thing of the past.

RUSSIA

When one mentions the Russian Federation, Putin immediately comes to mind. Just as in China, Russia has undergone a shift from collective institutional governance to individual leadership. This shift towards individual authoritarianism is essentially the inevitable outcome of the values inherent in socialist and leftist structures.  

Putin, who served as a foreign intelligence officer in the KGB during the Soviet era, is now the political and military leader of the country, as its independent leader in a new cold war with the United States. The war in Ukraine is nothing more than the fiercest beginning of this cold war.  Putin does not shy away from portraying himself as a leader who does not hesitate to expose Europe's helplessness in this war. He has amply demonstrated to the United States and European countries how he can disrupt the global energy balance. It is also a separate reality that he cannot see the blood he has shed in doing so.

However strong he may appear, his image as an isolated leader has brought him to the brink of harsher policies. In particular, the war with Ukraine has paved the way for future changes. This change is inevitable.  Putin's legitimacy has been called into question. His role as a leader who promises stability and prosperity to his own citizens while demanding that his people remain politically passive is no longer acceptable. The former communist state has exposed the weakness and frightening potential for violence of the socialist concept it idealises in order to return to its former glory days. The Russian Federation has now become Putin's state. While the former socialists want to rise again with the concept of new leftism, the people dream of the capitalist economic model being strengthened by democracy.

Today, leftist thought in the Russian Federation is advancing on the dreams of the past. During the Tsarist era, Western reforms influenced Russia, and concepts such as individual rights and the rule of law were discussed. The period from the Enlightenment to the Bolshevik Revolution, and from the rise to the fall of the Soviet Union, had the potential to change the concept of the left.  Officers of aristocratic origin rebelled for a constitutional monarchy and may have formed the first leftist movement.

Following the October Revolution of 1917, Lenin established the Bolshevik Party and seized power. Immediately afterwards, the Bolsheviks built a socialist state, defending the principles of proletarian dictatorship and a planned economy. By the time of Stalin, an authoritarian-centralist socialist ideology had emerged. By the 1980s, everything had come to light. Harsh and rigid policies paved the way for the collapse of the Soviet system with Gorbachev's Perestroika and Glasnost reforms.  

Today, left-wing intellectuals argue that the left must come to terms with its past and find alternative paths. The left in Russia essentially takes the form of controlled opposition. Nationalism and conservatism feature among the party's rhetoric. The new principles of left-wing thought in Europe, which are based on feminism, environmentalism and LGBT rights, are beginning to emerge as new left-wing and socialist, anarchist marginal groups. Restrictions on freedom of expression in Russia are preventing these movements from organising and spreading.

The new left prioritises left-wing values such as social justice, equality and freedom, finding its way particularly among young people, while also bringing with it the fear effect of the authoritarian structure of its socialist memory. The new left is oriented towards Western-style liberal leftist tendencies. In Russia, leftist thought continues to exist mainly as a cultural and intellectual sphere. Productions with leftist sensibilities in literature, cinema and art attract attention. However, the influence of the left on the political plane remains quite limited due to systematic repression and ideological fragmentation.

 6- WAS FUKUYAMA WRONG?

Fukuyama's thesis on The End of History is the main reason for this article's publication. This article was written as a strong advocate of his observations. However, Fukuyama does not neglect to consider and evaluate other alternatives to the concept of the end of history. The point we have reached is to evaluate capitalism's ability to generate alternatives in order to sustain itself.

The concept of the end of history was introduced in the book The End of History and the Last Man, published in 1992 following the collapse of the Soviet Union. The prevailing view finds meaning in the dominance of Western liberal thought and the existence of content that sanctifies it.  I will voice my objections to this loudly. This objection is not to the dominance of liberal thought, but to the fact that the West has not reached the highest level humanity can achieve, that it has failed this test miserably, that it has elevated liberal thought by plundering regions of humanity that are not at the same level of development, and that it has taken a hypocritical stance against wars.

The Middle East, Africa, Russia-Ukraine, and the United States' reckless and alarming expansionist stance undoubtedly constitute the most solid evidence of this. Capitalism has triumphed, but it has also created an enemy that will wound itself. This enemy is none other than itself. At this juncture, it must be able to bring forth its own special and privileged opposition in order to maintain its dynamism.

Whatever it may be called, whether it is called the LEFT or the NEW LEFT, what ultimately matters is that it should be a structure that is blocked under its own control. I must not forget that within collectivism, there will always be oppressive elements that will carry authoritarian identity to individual authoritarian identity. Just like Stalin, like Xi and Putin today...

Nevertheless, the necessary groundwork for an individual to live freely and prosperously will never find a place to exist in this space.

It is possible to say that liberal thought will become ineffective as the concept of individual leadership becomes more powerful than the laws themselves. Russia and China are prioritising the strengthening of their authoritarian identities in a situation where liberal democracy has weakened. The future will never allow the United States to continue as the sole superpower. It will always be confronted by China and Russia, which may support China but will never regain its former power. It is debatable how much Europe will stand by the United States. It should not be forgotten that when power is concentrated in a single hand, the impact and quality of decisions made have the potential to weaken. Such a leadership structure will lead to a weakening of the support for the administration and leaders of authoritarian nations within society. The comfort of not having to be accountable will eventually bring about undeniable and irreversible destruction. In my opinion, this fragility will manifest itself in the coming period for both Russia and the United States.

This is indisputable. China, perhaps due to its closed structure, has a structure that can maintain its longevity more securely against these two structures. History has shown that authoritarian systems can never be better than liberal democracy. Individual freedoms are concepts that authoritarian systems dislike. Although the 1930s may appear to have been a period of rise for authoritarian systems, liberal democracy has ultimately always prevailed. It is no coincidence that the reason the migration issue has turned into an international crisis today is that people want to escape oppressive authoritarian structures and live in the liberal democratic West. The concept of the end of history was introduced by Hegel after the French Revolution. Communists used this description to express their hope that the future would ultimately culminate in a communist structure. However, Hegel only used it to define historical progress.

While oppressive authoritarian structures take refuge in romantic myths to protect themselves, the loss of individual freedoms for people in their countries, the destruction of nature and the economy, demonstrate that this utopia will never be realised. The greatest obstacle to liberal democracy, however, is the rise of populism. While Europe itself is hampered by this individualistic leadership populism, it is also greatly troubled by the arrogance of the United States and its administrations.

Let us not forget that, in the 19th century, the establishment of the Prussian nation-state signified the end of history for Hegel. Karl Marx, on the other hand, claimed that real history began with communism. The point reached today is that capitalism has been winning since its inception, but it needs time to realise this. However, it is clear that the process will ultimately create new authoritarian structures to sustain itself, which will be called leftist or something else. Fukuyama states today that the era of 'unipolarity' in the global system is coming to an end, and that the era of unipolarity can never be organised according to the rules of a new multipolar world order. The US and China are the new sides of this multipolar system. Europe, Russia, Latin America and the Middle East will be separate powers on the sides of these poles. However, it is also necessary to evaluate China's emergence as a powerful country by blending its political system with a remarkable integration that confronts Western economic capitalism with difficulties, problems and crises.

Fukuyama's thesis cannot be considered a new situation. What he says is true, but it is a repetition of something that has been said many times before. Even if we say that capitalism, in its current form, is in the winning corner of the ring, it would be wrong to say that this situation is absolute and unchangeable. At the end of history, the fact that capitalism has been victorious from the very beginning has emerged. However, its continuity can only be maintained through the PRINCIPLE OF CONTROLLED BLOCKING. In other words, capitalism knows that the only force capable of destroying it is itself, so it must encourage and establish alternative left-wing structures that will restrain it and keep it away from the culture of individual leadership. It must also use this for the peace, security and prosperity of society, but only in a way that it can control.

7- WHERE DID THE TURKISH LEFT POSITION ITSELF (LIBERAL LEFT, SOCIALIST LEFT, OR ALL OF THEM TOGETHER)?

Where liberal and communist ideas compete globally and shape societies through their own ideological lenses, examining events in Turkey within the shadow of this competition actually forms the main subject of this article. Rather than how much of a left-wing perspective the Turkish people possess, the question of whether the foundations of left-wing ideas have found a place for themselves may be more realistic. In what other ways has the concept of the left, which claims to support change and transformation, been used in Turkey? Although it may suffice initially to view the concept of the left as a general definition of communism and socialism, it is now necessary to see that it is being addressed far beyond this definition. In the face of liberal democracy, the harsh authoritarian structure of communist ideology inevitably led those who believed in it to become disillusioned with the idea and to seek to give it a more moderate meaning by creating a new concept of the left. In Turkey, the term "new left" is being used by an intellectual group that defends it recklessly but fails to give it ideological and philosophical meaning, as a symbol of change and renewal. What is this new left?

Essentially, the new left should be seen as a new liberal shift that accepts the triumph of liberal democracy and is embraced by a group that once defined itself as communist, then socialist, and later social democratic, enabling liberal democracy to establish its own individual authority and supporting its continuous strengthening. However, it is doubtful whether those who use this concept have seriously considered the problematic nature of the set of concepts they have yet to contemplate regarding its consequences.

The definition of equality and freedom, which forms the essence of the concept of the left, has essentially progressed within the framework determined by class and economic approaches. Ideas that focused on anti-war sentiment in the past have now evolved into the environmental movement and LGBT rights. The left has now abandoned the principle of strengthening the economic aspirations of the working class. It has even abandoned the labour movement as a whole.

Let us examine the subject by looking at the history of the leftist movement and its organisation in Turkey.  The Ottoman intellectuals did not embrace the leftist ideology that was developing in Europe. Towards the end of the 19th century, after the Second Constitutional Era, we see the Amele Teşkilatı (Workers' Organisation) attempting to resolve the economic problems of workers. In 1921, the Workers' Union, established to regulate the rights of workers in the Zonguldak-Ereğli coal basin, became the first social security institution. After the proclamation of the 1920 Constitutional Monarchy, the Ottoman Socialist Party was founded. 

The interesting thing is that many intellectuals and academics who view the Committee of Union and Progress as today's left-wing party are unaware or unwilling to acknowledge that it was this very party that restricted workers' right to strike in 1913. The October Revolution of 1917 shaped the values of the Turkish left in a formalistic manner. It must be said that the October Revolution supported the victory of the Turkish National Liberation struggle. This newly established Communist structure distanced itself from Western democracy and was most active in its efforts to protect itself by preserving neighbouring countries and spreading its ideology.

Numerous movements emerged, such as the Turkish Socialist Party, the Turkish Communist Party, the Turkish People's Socialist Party, and the Turkish Workers' and Peasants' Socialist Party. The emergence of these movements did not go beyond the desire to join an alternative new side against the West. They were never the product of philosophical and social policy. The Republican People's Party, established in 1923 after the National Liberation Struggle and continuing as the party of the single-party system until 1945, wiped out all parties seeking to integrate into the socialist structure from the political scene. And the leftist movement would never have the power to produce ideological definitions based on class foundations to the extent it intended. The founding leaders of the National Liberation Struggle, at the İzmir Economic Congress held on 7 February 1923, aimed to produce capitalist economic models and liberal policies. However, the absence of domestic capital to spearhead this model caused this endeavour to shift towards a state-led economic model after a while.

The Kadro Movement defended a model they called the third way, distinct from socialism and capitalism. This model is essentially state capitalism itself. It is clear that the poor and weary people after the War of Independence could not be organised on a class basis, as no such class existed at the time. The model was an attempt to find the right moment for capital to emerge. The Cadre and Direction movements were supporters of a statist and even socialist economic model. It should be remembered that these political tendencies were members of the unionist tradition. It is necessary to reveal another important fact. The national liberation struggle also received significant support from the Anatolian notables and, to some extent, from the national bourgeoisie, which had commercial relations with foreigners.  After the war, military and civilian intellectuals joined this group. Today, these groups constitute Turkey's fundamental economic base and continue to exist as the elitist citizens of a separate class. This group, which holds power, has viewed the working class's establishment of a democratic feast and its role as a driving force for itself with suspicion. The working class and the educated civil servant class, along with their children, who later gained access to education, were faced with two options: religion and the idea of becoming Westernised.

The process of creating a domestic capital group after the struggle for independence, carried out by the state, is essentially invaluable after such revolutions. However, the working class's growth in response to these developments, which was merely controlled, led to growth without the skills and abilities to produce open-minded policies for development and change. It was the labour movement that enabled countries like Germany to quickly overcome their post-war traumas. The foundations of Germany were laid through rapid industrialisation and minimising social inequality and class differences. However, the Turkish bourgeoisie did not allow the labour movement to become sufficiently strong, and the working class and its leaders remained weak and inadequate due to their lack of the knowledge and skills to achieve this.

The post-World War II era and the bipolar world order also had an impact on Turkey.  The Democratic Party, founded in 1946 and coming to power shortly thereafter, rose to prominence and seized power in opposition to the oppressive model established by the founding leaders of the Republican People's Party, which was characterised by a military-intellectual alliance. It soon became apparent to the public that these efforts would not bring them prosperity and peace. Following the War of Independence, the Republican People's Party, with its repressive and authoritarian structure, emphasised the rhetoric of liberty, freedom and democracy after its defeat by the Democratic Party. The concept of "Centre-Left" would later be used to describe this defeat.

The Republican People's Party continues to assert that it represents the leftist movement in Turkey, even after its defeat. This stance reflects the limbo created by the loss of its former power and its inability to adapt to the new capitalist world. The party's current rhetoric, distanced from the concept of social justice or the idea of class conflict, is merely a poor imitation of the new left, consisting of anti-government rhetoric. The Centre-Left has rejected class conflict and taken a conciliatory stance. With the military coup in 1960, left-wing ideological thinking began to dominate. The Centre-Left found a safer harbour by extending itself to Kemalism. With the adoption of the 1961 Constitution, political organisations increased, and rights such as trade union movements, strikes and rallies were enshrined in the constitution. Worker and student circles were influenced by this momentum.

The rise of left-wing movements in Turkey has no philosophical or ideological aspect. Although its contribution to the momentum that would ensure progress in the coming period was supported by enlightened and intellectual individuals, this group itself later became the very crowd that enabled the rise of liberal democracy. The military memorandum of 12 March 1971 put an end to this rise of the Left. The authoritarian structure regained strength, and subsequently, leftist ideas radicalised and rose again. However, the working class and leftist ideas began to drift apart. For this reason, the leftist movement was unable to gain the power to influence state policies. It has always considered it more practical to be an ally of the bourgeoisie. Not only the 12 March memorandum, but all coups in Turkey were essentially carried out due to the incompetence of the post-independence war tradesmen and merchants in becoming bourgeois and the military's desire to take over this field. For this reason, it has taken on a repressive and authoritarian identity.

Young leftists adopted a military structure in response to this pressure. Radical leftist organisations in university think tanks began to arm themselves as rural and urban guerrillas. Opposing these organisations, Anti-Communist Associations were formed under the auspices of the United States, and the state's implementation of liberal economic models, along with the left-right conflicts, was postponed until another spring. The 1980 military coup reinforced the idea that classical capitalist models would suffice for implementing liberal economic models and establishing innovative structures. The leftist movement in Turkey failed to produce policies that would meet the needs of society. The phrase "a more productive order by the people" was not innovative, but it became a saviour for the people in the midst of economic hardship. We must admit that socialist parties considered it more appropriate to oppose capital with discourses on freedom, internationalism, democracy, planning, human-nature relations, anti-militarism, non-sexism, LGBT rights, minority rights, etc. However, what they did was to prevent the country from establishing the right capitalist model and to hinder the working class from demonstrating the dynamism needed to achieve this. Romantic socialist ideas still insistently defend the same romanticism and unreality today.

The leftist movement in Turkey has never been homogeneous. It has spent time debating romantic goals within itself. In this sense, its search for a social base has become worthless. Each leftist faction has created theoretical myths to define itself. However, these myths did not contain values that would ensure the health and peace of the people. The greatest criticism will be directed at the 1980s.  Özal's political power did not stem from liberal democracy and capitalism, but from the military mindset within state institutions, the holders of old power. This period saw the military coup's domination over capital and the reckless development of the capital groups it had chosen. The existence of terrorism also made it understandable that the state preferred a controlled structure, as it was the biggest obstacle to the development of liberal democracy. In Turkey, the left could not define itself as liberal; despite the passing years, it still preferred to maintain its statist position. This has prevented it from capturing the dynamics of development. The left, which pursued individual freedoms, wanted the state to be present in the economic sphere. Like the naughty child of the family, it exhibits adolescent behaviour, preferring to go out late at night and enjoy itself recklessly while expecting its father to pay the household bills.

 8-WHY DİD THE TURKISH LEFT CHOOSE TO CIMMİT SUİCİDE?

If someone were to ask whether the Turkish Left has chosen to commit suicide or is undergoing a process of transformation to emerge from its cocoon, and if they were to ask for this to be defined as a percentage, it would be incorrect to say that the second option is possible.

The Turkish Left chose to commit suicide. Because the conditions necessary for its existence could not find a place in this country. When it thought it had found them, it could not go beyond being a simple and cheap imitator of other capitalist and socialist countries. So much so that separatist Kurdish groups, who claimed to be libertarians and saw themselves as closer to the left, even to Marxism, proved to be repressive and authoritarian when the time came. A long time ago, Al Jazeera Türk published an interview under the headline "What Should the Left Do?" These interviews discussed the real problem of not being "indigenous" and the chaos this created. Being local was equated with bigotry, backwardness, and even fascism for the left. While the founding cadres and the subsequent cadre movement worked to pave the way for being local and national, today's political left may view the opposite direction as progress.

Although radical leftist groups defended statism, they viewed the actions of these illegal organisations in the name of freedom with sympathy and ultimately adopted the principle of not being local or national. They enthusiastically embraced Western leftist ideas, despite viewing their own states as imperialist. They have adopted a method that is cheap and cannot go beyond imitation.

The Turkish left's inability to become nationalist is naturally reflected in its discourse alongside the class definitions of workers and peasants, yet it has never historically managed to gain the full support of these classes. It has mostly attempted to compensate for this deficiency by attributing it to "Alevis and Kemalists". The real question that should be asked here is why they failed to demonstrate the ability to be "indigenous." This lies in their contempt for the people's religious beliefs. Islam was seen as the main reason for backwardness and was never considered an ally; rather, it was viewed as a rival and even an enemy to be opposed. Communism's disregard for religion led the Turkish left to adopt this perspective.

It is possible to attribute the Alevi community's focus on leftist ideas to both religious and cultural perspectives. Ultimately, they have a worldly rather than a spiritual outlook. This leads them to be more materialistic. It would be incorrect to say that this is a bad thing. The state's harsh and oppressive treatment of the Alevis and its disregard for them has resulted in a definitive and difficult-to-repair division.

Garo Paylan has a beautiful saying. The Turkish left has debated the issue of identity. However, it should have focused on the issue of class. We must stand behind this saying. Ultimately, it is true that liberal democracy and the capitalist economic model increase productive power, but this will always require the driving force of a strong class consciousness. Class differences must be accepted, and without allowing these differences to create unrest, there is a need for the dynamism of a working class with high purchasing power and a sense of security.

The left in Turkey has always been seen as irreligious, highly sympathetic to foreigners, and bourgeois (how ironic). It has never come to power, but it has not been able to form a good opposition either. It has been weak and incompetent in producing alternative models, lacking theoretical and practical experience. The belief that holding Kemalist ideas is sufficient for them has led them to act as if this were enough to make them national. The inability to produce alternatives essentially stems from the failure to utilise class dynamics correctly. They have created a strange series of ideas, taking the easy way out by trying to integrate Western ideas with the socialist model.

Although new voices such as socialist Muslims have emerged, their oppositional identities have been viewed as allies by the radical left and liberal left, preventing them from developing substantial theories within their own ranks and rendering them ineffective in practice. Identity politics will be the greatest enemy of a strong economy and social harmony. Ideas that believe identities should be separated from class issues are gaining widespread traction. The moment Kurds feel they are being treated discriminatorily, the gains of the classes will become meaningless. However, if the issue were to be addressed entirely on the basis of a strong economic order, it would be clear that divisions based on identity could be easily overcome.

The definition of liberalism appears as a concept that the left dislikes. However, today, having liberal ideas is seen as an intellectual stance. The nationalist stance on the issue is also very interesting. The concept of Atatürk Nationalism is also widely used. The point is that it can be said that people are quite adept at manipulating concepts. A process is underway whereby society prefers to quickly separate itself from those who do not think like them and move on to definitions based on other concepts. The concept of nationalism is defined as reactionary and fascist. Nationalism is one of the cornerstones of this country's struggle for independence. And among the founding cadres were nationalist, Turkic nationalist, and religious leaders and commanders. In short, leftist thought has never possessed ideas that could be nurtured in its own homeland. This has led to its marginalisation from power and governance.

Prof. Dr. Deniz Ülke Kaynak, in her book From Trauma to Victory, asks the question, "Is it a good thing or a bad thing that we have large group identities built on collective affiliations, namely religious, ethnic, national?" and continues. Bulgarian author Georgi Gospodinov, in his book The Physics of Sorrow, uses the following statement: there is only one identity. Being a living being among living beings does not change the fact that we are living beings, with multiple defining characteristics. Each individual continues to exist as part of numerous 'we' phenomena, that is, numerous large groups. This process of socialisation, which begins with being a member of a family, expands to kinship, clan and tribal ties, our biological and ethnic roots, religious and sectarian affiliations, our national identity, and even our professional, sporting interests and interest groups, all of which are relatively looser ties than the rigid and tight bonds mentioned above. When interests and expectations diverge, social groupings fluctuate and shift direction. When large groups perceive a threat to themselves or experience collective trauma, a primitive sense of aggression and fear is often triggered, and collective identity undergoes a regression. This regression, i.e., a decrease in impulse control, results in reduced tolerance for anxiety and diminished capacity for rational thought and decision-making.  

It must be acknowledged that the Turkish Left chose to commit suicide. And the real problem is that it is not yet aware of this. It must establish a new political formation and a different structure. This leftist ideology must work not on identities but on strengthening the existence of classes. In his work The Open Society and Its Enemies, Karl Popper understood why intellectuals were progressive and consequently turned to Marxism, but he also stated that progress would not be easy and could even lead to dangerous decisions. Although Marxism was a progressive programme, its theoretical and practical burdens pushed them towards radicalisation.

Popper's paradoxes are issues that warrant considerable discussion within the Turkish left. Discussing them will at least provide an opportunity to reconsider their methodology.

a-The prophecy paradox, which states that a prophecy about something happening could be the cause of that thing happening. Thoughts that express our desires rather than reality could be the cause of those desires being fulfilled. 

b- If you leave it to its own devices, the very thing you said would happen will no longer happen, thus creating a self-fulfilling prophecy paradox. Marx's prophecy about the future of capitalist society is a case in point. His prediction that capitalist society, through its own logic or illogic, would ultimately divide into a wealthy minority, the middle class would almost completely disappear, the proletariat would rise up, and a classless or communist society would be realised is a good example of this.

c-The paradox of freedom, which states that freedom, in the sense of the absence of any restrictive control, will lead to great despotism because it will allow tyrants to enslave the weak. The solution to the paradox of freedom is not as difficult and impossible as Popper and others suggest. This liberalism and the state's involvement or interference are not contradictory. To put it more simply, freedom is not contrary to law, rules, or control. On the contrary, no form of freedom is possible unless it is safeguarded by the state.

d-The democratic paradox is the possibility that the majority can decide to allow a tyrant to rule, or, to put it another way, that the majority can decide to abolish democracy by democratic means. 

e-The tolerance paradox, which argues that unlimited tolerance will inevitably lead to the disappearance of tolerance itself. If tolerance is shown even to those who are intolerant, and if the tolerant society is not defended against the attacks of the intolerant, then tolerance itself will disappear.

f-The Liar Paradox states the following: A Cretan claims that all Cretans are liars. If this statement is true, then he himself is a liar, since he is also a Cretan. Therefore, the statement that all Cretans are liars is a lie.   

9-CONCLUSION:

This article is not written solely to criticise the Turkish left. Ultimately, it boldly sets out how it should be achieved if it wants to undergo a transformation. Moving away from individual definitions, it states that the Turkish left is not national, not faithful, and not indigenous from the perspective of the ideological viewpoint and theories of the concept of the left.

As Richard Sennett states in his work, The Overclass, "Without bonds of loyalty, authority, and brotherhood, no society as a whole, nor any institution within that society, can maintain its functionality for long. Therefore, emotional bonds have political consequences. These bonds often unite people against their own interests, as when they are bound by loyalty to a charismatic leader who takes away their freedoms.  Authority is a fundamental necessity."

 This authority will give rise to capitalist economic models that are controllable and have not turned their backs on class values, and this will lead to high intellectual thought production, democracy and scientific development.

Within the Turkish left, terminology such as the Conservative Left Party and the Nationalist Conservative Left Party is not far off; these are ideas that need to be discussed.

Mehmet AK

10- SOURCE

1- Journal of Academic Inquiries

 Volume: 9, Issue: 1, Year: 2014

 2-Early Socialist Theory and Labour Movements in Europe (1830-1840)

3- Early Socialist Theory and Workers’ Movements in Europe (1830-1840)

4-The Cadre Movement, Nationalist Left and the Search for a Third Way in the World and Turkey, 2025, Kırmızı Kedi Publications

5- Richard Sennett, Authoritarian.

6-Jose Ortega Y. Gasset: The Revolt of the Masses

7-Julien Benda, The Treason of the Intellectuals

8-Thomas Piketty, The Economics of Inequality

9-Prof. Dr. Ahmet Arslam, Islam, Democracy and Turkey

10-Fikret Başkaya, The Collapse of the Paradigm

11-Roger Scruton, Buffoons-con artists-troublemakers: the new left-wing thinkers