Socializing politics, politicizing society

While Turkey has been focused on the absolute nullity decision regarding the CHP, the judiciary appointing a chairman to the head of the main opposition party, and the appointment of trustees, trustees were also quietly appointed to some leading companies in the poultry sector.

Rather than talking about the trustees appointed to political and commercial institutions here, what is truly important is to discuss producing solutions to society's problems, the politicization of society, and ensuring that citizens participate in the struggle to solve their own problems in a conscious and organized manner.

It should not be forgotten that the infighting within the CHP and the mutual bickering between two chairmen (one elected, one appointed) who have no ideological differences between them, serves no purpose.

It is necessary to see that the conflict between a figure who has lost all the general elections, local elections, referendums, and presidential elections he has entered—and who is also known for his love and respect for right-wing politics and right-wing cadres, as well as his tolerance and affinity for opponents of Atatürk and Kemalism (Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu, Mehmet Bekaroğlu, Orhan Sarıbal, Yüksel Taşkın, Hüseyin Aygün, Muhammet Çakmak, and others)—and the figures he raised, mentored, and paved the way for (Özgür Özel, Ekrem İmamoğlu, and others) is not ideological.

Since the real problem is capitalism, the real problem is liberalism, and the real problem is the poverty, decay, and corruption they create, it is necessary to shift the political debate to this ground and build an organized, class-based struggle along this line.

Because no matter what their supporters say, capitalism, by its very nature, produces crises. The heavy bill of these crises falls on the laborers, the poor, the low-income earners, and the broad masses of the people. Capitalism pollutes nature and the environment. It poisons food, air, and water. It erodes moral values. It makes the rich richer and the poor poorer.

Ultimately, as we always say, in capitalism, profits are privatized and losses are socialized.

THOSE WHO CALL ON THE STATE WHEN THEY INCUR LOSSES

We know that whenever capitalism experiences a depression, when major bankruptcies occur, credit bubbles burst, the stock market crashes, or share prices plummet, state intervention is immediately demanded. State bailout packages are put into effect.

The famous supply-demand mechanism in capitalism, the theory of the invisible hand, the assumption that prices are determined within the framework of market rules, and the presuppositions regarding free trade and free competition are immediately forgotten. State intervention is defended. We see this in all the national and global economic crises we have experienced.

Top executives, CEOs, and CFOs—who pay thousands of dollars for a lunch, travel by private jet, receive salaries of hundreds of thousands of dollars and bonuses of millions of dollars, and are graduates of prestigious US universities, some with master's and doctoral degrees—immediately advocate for state intervention.

Here, the following questions must be asked:

Is it possible to fight against inequality, injustice, unemployment, and poverty while remaining within capitalism? Can problems be solved by staying within capitalism, or even by pulling capitalism to the left and strengthening the social state, as some social democrats advocate? Can permanent solutions to social inequalities and class divides be produced by remaining within the capitalist system and following the policies advocated by the famous British economist Keynes—that is, by advocating for the state to intervene in the market and increase public spending during periods of crisis?

These questions can be multiplied further. However, all the answers we will give are negative.

Because the chasm of wealth and misery is deepening both within countries and between countries. In developed, core, capitalist, imperialist countries, the wealthiest 1 percent of the population owns the majority of the country's total wealth, sometimes half, sometimes even more. This chasm, this distortion, this injustice, and this inequality inevitably shape politics. While politicians serve as spokespeople and representatives for these wealthy individuals, everything from law to education, from health to culture, is shaped in line with the demands and interests of these wealthy individuals.

Let us deepen the discussion by asking a few more questions regarding law and politics.

Is the constitution a legal text that stands above classes? Can there be a constitution without an ideology? Is a non-ideological economic policy, fiscal policy, or tax policy possible? Is it possible to equate democracy with privatization and to argue that democracy means the same thing as the free market, free trade, and free competition?

Of course not.

THE DEFINITION OF DEMOCRACY IS CLASS-BASED AND IDEOLOGICAL

Then, it is necessary to grasp democracy ideologically as well.

It is necessary to fight for a communal democracy, a participatory democracy, and to organize the people in this direction. It is necessary to ensure that every citizen in society understands that there can be no economic policy independent of class preferences. It is necessary to explain to everyone that relations of production, ownership, and distribution are the fundamental subject of politics. It is necessary to remind people that there is no relationship between the ownership structure of the means of production and their efficiency or profitability; that a state-owned factory can be profitable just as a private company can incur losses; that this truth is twisted to convince the public of privatizations; that State Economic Enterprises (KİT) were turned into sources of patronage; and that some were privatized at prices below the value of their land.

It is also necessary to remind those in Turkey who say "we will shrink the state," starting with Turgut Özal, and Özal's center-right, conservative, and social-democratic admirers, that while they were shrinking the state, they were simultaneously demeaning the state.