Youth, work, and new parenthood

Every economic infrastructure determines the superstructure. Every economic infrastructure shapes work habits, even the definition of work, the definition of law, legal rules, romantic relationships, marriage—in short, a new moral structure. The political and cultural structure of our day is neoliberalism; its building blocks can be explained by concepts such as a consumer society, extreme individualism, distrust of others, a new mafia order, a new understanding of imperialism, and a return to the Middle Ages. We could continue the explanation with the collapse of nation-states, the destruction of national institutions, infinite freedom for the capitalist class, and the increasing impoverishment of the working classes, or even techno-feudalism; however, one thing is clear: its name is: Social decay...

That is why I will try to discuss this frequently debated topic (the decay and contamination of society) through a single theme. But I must pose the real question: even if we were to change this system (through revolution), would we have eliminated the malfunctions I just listed? Along with this, another question arises: will changing only the economic infrastructure from today solve all our problems? (I am saving my opinion for the end of the article.)

The boundaries of this article are formed by the concept of "new parenthood" and the children raised by these new parents. Work ethic and youth are also within the scope of the article. I certainly want to examine why the children of the new middle class cannot work and the reasons for this.

The discussion inevitably becomes complicated at this point; the concept of the middle class is a book topic in itself, and furthermore, the history, emergence, and current state of the middle class are very important for understanding our day. Additionally, the answer to the question "Why can't they work?" is incomplete because, in the neoliberal economic order, unemployment is a separate issue in itself, but it is not within the scope of this article... After adding this short note, we can continue.

The answer to why I suggest reading through the middle class is this:

I give weight to this class because this segment, defined as the "middle class," largely determines the general moral structure (superstructure) of society.

But...

Within the limits of this article, I want to address the subject through its visible aspects that everyone can feel in daily life but cannot fully make sense of. For this reason, I prefer a more emotional and superficial perspective. I especially want to talk about the children of a segment that feels itself on the left but has adapted to all the building blocks of the system.

It has become essential for me to add one more short note in this situation. While writing a kind of disparaging piece on the new youth, the uprisings that started in France under the leadership of high school students and spread throughout the country do not change the main axis of this article.

The youth movement that started in India, and even took place in Nepal in the recent period, leading to a change in government, continues in Brazil, Chile, and Spain. It is useful to look at the content of these street movements: we can characterize them as an explosion against corruption, the collapse of public services, and privilege. They are spontaneous movements far from a political line. The task here, of course, falls to socialists, parties, and organizations; they are the ones who will draw the revolutionary direction and carry revolutionary consciousness.

Of course, it is also necessary to prevent this misunderstanding: I am not disparaging such actions, I just find them incomplete, and I find the deficiency especially in socialist organizations.

Returning to our topic, first, a short explanation about the "middle class" is necessary.

What is the "middle class"?

I will not go into the origin of the concept. The middle class, which also appears in Karl Marx's books, emerged in its current sense after the 1930s, more in relation to the existence of social democrats. In this period, when industrial capitalism was still effective, it was shaped by providing high wages to working segments to create a barrier against socialism, and by adopting the principles of equality in education and justice.

Its main characteristic is having a certain income, trusting in the continuity of this income, and even believing that they will climb the class ladder. This segment, which can save money by working and turn to investments such as houses and cars, generally has an education level above the social average and an income above the poverty line. They do not have anxiety about the future.

They hope that when they give their children a good education, they will reach certain positions, and in fact, they did reach those positions for a period. We are talking about a class whose rights were taken away one by one after the transition to neoliberalism after 1980, and especially with the dissolution of real socialism in 1991, and which began to lose its confidence in the future.

While I am at it, I want to bring a few more questions to the agenda: Why have left-socialists not been successful in raising children? Is it possible that the group most affected by neoliberalism is the left-socialists? Is there a link between left-socialists and the middle class? If so, what is the dimension of this link?

Returning to the main line of our article, middle-class members have created a new child-adolescent typology.

These children, who study in state or private schools, have made the middle-class ideology more clearly visible and analyzable compared to their parents.

Now let's write down a few visible reflections of this:

1. The utopia of "if we work, it will happen" in the middle class has been reflected in the children of the middle class with the understanding of "if we work, it should happen, it will happen." The children will study and a beautiful job will await them, a bright future will lie ahead of them...

The principle of "I must work to live," which exists in working-class and poor children, does not exist in middle-class children. Because their parents did not pass such a principle on to them.

2. The children of this class do not see working as absolutely necessary just to earn money and live.

For the children of this class, working is shaped by the understanding of "Besides earning, I must have a job where I can also be happy and rise." Being happy with working, loving the job one does, feeling happy while working... Whatever all this means!

A person can respect their job, try to do their job well, and feel that they are useful to society thanks to the job they do. These are different things. But what does it mean to both work and be happy? This is a vague expectation and an ideology suitable for the neoliberalism of our age. Both working and having fun; it is an ideological manipulation in itself, and the children of this class are not even aware of it. And this is exactly why they are like fish out of water when they are thrown into the real world.

Their parents created this situation, which does not exist in real life, and instilled it in their children. Because their parents grew up in the swamp of neoliberalism with a great ideological manipulation after 1980.

3. For the children of the middle class, the idea of working for society has already been kicked out from the beginning, and the way of thinking that has been brought in is the belief that "I am special!" Now every child is special, and the state of being special pushes the child out of society; it weakens their bond with the other and with society.

These new children take a step into working life, but when they realize that they cannot both work and be happy as they were taught, they quit their jobs. Their most fundamental problem is not taking responsibility. Taking responsibility requires effort, process, and sacrifice. These middle-class children, who have never taken any responsibility in their lives, have never made any sacrifices, and have never had to put in any effort, take refuge in a home where there is no responsibility. Their new friends are now computer games and TV series. And they discover that one can live like this too. For them, life is now consuming life, killing time.

4. They discover their utopias in this virtual environment. They find living someone else's life in TV series. Their revenge has now begun to be taken by TV series characters and game characters. The emergence of such films and series in the recent period is exactly because of this.

5. When this is the case, the state makes a fuss, saying, "No one wants to take an ordinary job." Ordinary jobs are left to immigrants and desperate people. What happens after this? The middle-class children sitting at home suddenly start to become fascists. They act as if immigrants are taking all the jobs they have. The state and capital have no such concern anyway.

6. It has been determined that approximately 3.5 million young people between the ages of 22-35, who are of working age, are sitting at home. As we mentioned above, one of the characteristics of the middle class is that it determines the ideological orientation of society. This ideological hegemony is becoming a lifestyle for the children of poorer segments as well. We will also touch upon how poor neighborhoods become gang-ridden and a human field for the mafia, but we will address this topic in another article.

Men make up the majority of the 3.5 million "home-bound youth" group we mentioned. The reason why this rate is lower in women is that women are more tightly bound to their economic freedom due to the experience of oppression coming from deeper levels. The shift of working life towards the service sector and the intensification of office jobs also seem to be effective in this.

Of course, MESEM (Vocational Training Centers) should also be evaluated in this context. The exploitation of children as workers is an illusion in itself and is a new form of exploitation developed by the state.

If you want to destroy a country, it is enough to collapse the education system, make the health system inoperable, and ruin the legal order. That is why attacks on education, in particular, have been in the first place during the neoliberal period. Neoliberalism is an enemy of the human mind; it starts by destroying the enlightened mind, that is, the mind itself.

7. The privatization of the education system is the biggest weapon used in this process. For example, in the new education system, a student who enters the top 1% bracket and a student who enters the 50% bracket can sit at the same desk. Strangely enough, the segment that is in the 50% bracket and goes to university by paying money gets ahead in business life. Their family, environment, and the wealth they possess provide them with these opportunities.

Let's say there are 10 students who studied psychology; one entered with 300 points, the others entered with 400 points, and they are finishing their schools. The fee-paying student who entered with 300 points opens a clinic for themselves and employs the 9 psychologists who entered with 400 points. This situation is, of course, a destruction for every young person who will enter the new working life. Even if they are not aware of it, even if they do not express it, they will experience this injustice inside and it will affect their lives.

8. The fundamental characteristic of these children is that they are raised by being protected from all risks. They are constantly being frightened. The "street" is a monster for these children, the safety of schools is the biggest problem, and the fear of growing up unhealthy, viruses, and getting sick has been injected into these children at early ages. Of course, the ones who cause this result are their own parents. All these fears have isolated and individualized the children. But more importantly, it has been reflected as not trusting any institution, community, or even other people other than themselves.

9. At the root of these fears is the dominant ideology of neoliberalism. Neoliberalism first severed the human being from their history; the new youth does not know history, is disconnected from their history, and they have been raised by their families constantly through the importance of "living in the moment." The youth, who already have no history and have no hope left for the future, have reached the point of explosion, and we see this clearly in the new student protests.

10. Neoliberalism has promised to eliminate borders with the promise of freedom for everything and has declared war on the idea of the nation-state. The nation-state and its institutions have been rotted one by one and rendered inoperable. The most fundamental instinct of a human being is to seek trust. This new youth has grown up unable to trust any institution. They are in a constant state of distrust. Where there is no trust, the idea of working together does not exist anyway. The youth are in a state of being unable to work together.

11. These children have been raised at home without boundaries being set. Since their infancy, they have been raised with a ridiculous understanding of freedom adopted by their parents. However, freedom is possible not by the elimination of boundaries, but by being able to exist within one's own boundaries without violating the boundaries of others. This is one of the biggest mistakes made in child-rearing. Children need boundaries. When there are no boundaries, they do not feel safe. However, the most important condition for mental balance for a child is to feel safe.

12. These children have been carried from course to course, always under the supervision of their parents, who see the outside world and others as a constant danger. They have been raised by being told, "You are valuable, you are the best!" and a ridiculous self-confidence has been instilled in them. For example, they have parents who dream that the child will immediately rise to the national team when they start tennis. This empty self-confidence has prevented the child from doing a job, establishing a partnership, and developing a common consciousness in the future.

Coming to the conclusion, the fundamental reason for the new youth phenomenon is the parents who have coincided with a great ideological manipulation. The "middle class" created by the bipolar world began to lose its middle-class status slowly after the dissolution of socialism. This is a positive development because the middle class has a structure that absorbs and spreads the neoliberalist ideology. The children they raise, on the other hand, have been frightened, individualized, disconnected from their history, and devoid of class consciousness.

But the real question is this: Why have socialists been so affected by this "middle-class" ideology?

Well, I ask this question for left-socialists: Will changing the economic infrastructure solve all our problems?

Let's give an example. Was the October Revolution able to change the entire social infrastructure immediately thanks to the revolution? After the revolution, was it able to change peasant thinking, feudal remnants, and religious values rapidly?

Of course, the revolution loaded a great trust onto those who believed in the change of society, but the change took a long time and was not even fully achieved.

Trying to create the new human being only from today is a deficiency, and arguing that it will change only with revolution is also a deficiency; only the two of them walking together will produce positive results.