New coordinates are needed

The coordinates of politics have been disrupted. In the past, Left and Right provided a clear basis for clustering. Science, modernity, justice, and equality fell to the left; tradition, security, and expansionism fell to the right. Democracy was on the left, and anti-democracy was on the right... Those were good days. Even when the "Left" lost, it was happy. Because it was defending "good" things.

You may have noticed. This narrative did not essentially align with reality either. There were mountains of difference between the left in developed countries and the left in developing countries. Yet, one could speak as if no such difference existed.

A similar problem existed with the concept pair of populism and popularism. Despite the liberal discourse that accused the Right of being entirely "populist," populism was essentially a part of the Left. And as with many other terms, this term also pointed to two completely different concepts. One, when used in its pejorative sense... corresponded to doing whatever it takes to win over the masses, which in this form corresponds more to a method of conducting politics rather than an ideological stance. The other, the true meaning of the word, refers to popularism... Popularism is an unfortunate concept. Because Marxism and Marxists monopolized socialism, communism, and egalitarianism simultaneously, popularism turned into an empty signifier. However, popularism corresponds directly to socialism. The "narodnaya volya" (Will of the People) movement in the history of the revolutionary struggle of Russian and Slavic peoples, and the term "populism" that accompanied the national liberation struggles of Latin American peoples, correspond to non-Marxist socialism. Due to the inclusiveness of Marxism and the hostility felt toward Marxists, the principle of popularism was carefully detached from these socialist practices. In the end, it ceased to mean anything at all. Anyway... Drawing boundaries between such concepts and understanding these concepts has become a life-draining task in itself.

If we set such exceptions aside, everything used to be clear. Now, science is quite the favorite of both the liberal right and the nationalist right. The pro-Israel fanatic Zionist Sam Harris, the atheist liberal Richard Dawkins, and Michio Kaku, who is more Americanist than the Neocons, are all scientistic. In fact, the Elon Musk-Trump duo, and behind the front lines, Jordan Peterson, accuse figures like Judith Butler, whom the postmodern left clings to, of being anti-scientific. As you can see, discourses that once seemed like intra-left debates are now emerging on a completely different plane.

While concepts like public ownership and planned economy were once found solely in the discourse treasury of left-wing politics, today a party like the Victory Party (Zafer Partisi), which many would consider right-wing, holds pro-public ownership and pro-planned economy rhetoric.

Those who defended the family and sacred values used to be distant from science and enlightenment in the past. Nowadays, people like Aleksander Dugin in Russia, Elon Musk in the USA, and Jordan Peterson in Canada, who are seen by many as representatives of the rising right, defend the family, traditional values, and science simultaneously. So much so that these figures, who do not align geopolitically, unite in their anti-woke stance, as seen in the influential account "End Wokeness" on X. The anti-woke alliance has reached such a broad front that the divide between woke and anti-woke cannot be translated into a left-right opposition.

When we list those who react against the claims and assumptions of global politics, an interesting picture emerges. The Maoist French philosopher Alain Badiou, the Russian nationalist philosopher Aleksander Dugin, and the conservative right-wing psychologist Jordan Peterson all find themselves simultaneously in an anti-woke position, against the West's left-liberal discourse.

When we look at the voting behavior on the campuses of our country's leading universities, we can see that both the Victory Party and the Workers' Party of Turkey (TİP) are rising, and more interestingly, a youth demographic has emerged that approves of the rhetoric of both.

So, what does this symptom tell us? In my opinion, there is a rising opposition to the discourse of the media, which is considered to be globally influential and reflective of the system's core narratives. Opposition to the discourse of publications like CNN, The Times, and The Economist is rising. Above all, opposition to the discourse of the EU left is rising. This opposition sometimes turns toward racism, sometimes toward rigid egalitarianism, and sometimes toward deep scientism. Sometimes we can even see those who turn toward these simultaneously.

Explaining this rise with Generation Z is taking the easy way out. The rise of a nationalist, scientistic, and hardline discourse that rises against the global central narrative, as if by a consensus on a global scale, is not limited to the youth. The hidden anger that has been tried to be covered up for years with the insistence on "tolerance" is coming to light. Cultural hostilities, essentialist approaches, and intense love and hatred toward specific communities have been spilled out into the open.

Gender conflicts, cultural conflicts, ethnic conflicts, class anger, and ultimately intense nihilistic reactions, all masked by "tolerance" and "development," are emerging in a jumble.

It is difficult to theorize this jumble. It is clear that the values presented to society as cement, and the discourses established to ensure social peace and tranquility, have collapsed. But it is difficult to see what will solidify in the future and what will become the dominant discourse. Perhaps the power struggle will reveal itself when it nears a lull. We shall see.

2025 will be a year where these symptoms will be seen more intensely. We shall see. Happy New Year!