******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ********************
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*****************************************************************
1. From Sungur Savran: http://redmed.org/article/turkey-war-two-coups:
The third question we wish to take up is the excitement caused by the
image of people swarming on top of tanks, which to the eye uninitiated
in the intricacies of Turkish politics may seem as a great democratic
reaction on the part of the people. To pose the question in the most
blunt manner, this was not “the people” at large. ....
We should also look into the composition of the AKP crowd. A sizeable
minority of these people were armed. All men, they had come to “assist
the police” according to their own statements. In many buildings that
had earlier been taken over by the putschist forces, the fight to drive
them out was waged by a combination of police officers and these
civilians. Their activity is in our opinion akin to the activity of the
paramilitary branch of a political party, such as Mussolini’s or Hitler’s
armed militia. This has to be situated within the context of a new
orientation on the part of Erdoğan. Ever since the Gezi uprising Erdoğan
has systematically been building an array of paramilitary forces,
ranging from the so-called “Ottoman corps” through reactionary Kurdish
forces being prepared to fight the Kurdish movement to hardly disguised
relations with notorious figures of the crime world. The coup pushed
these paramilitary currents to test themselves unexpectedly early. ...
It is true that there was a larger component of the AKP crowd that did
not display characteristics of a paramilitary force. But they were
totally committed to a programme that is ideologically and politically
reactionary through and through. We are of the opinion that masses
almost brainwashed by reactionary or fascist movements cannot be
characterised as “people” or “the masses” without further specification.
The latter can only be invoked when there is an element of spontaneity
in the movement one is looking at (irrespective of whether some may
belong to different organisations). The AKP masses were tightly
disciplined partisans. ...
It is also important to note that the outpour of people was, at least
partially, a result of imams calling out from mosques to the people to
summon them, in the name of religion and fatherland, to the hotspots of
action. The unusual experience of imams calling Muslims to the fight
must have acted, in all probability, to increase considerably the
numbers participating. Again, this shows that the crowds on the squares
were not “the people” at large, but the militants of a political party.
2. From Senay Ozden
https://www.facebook.com/senay.ozden.54/posts/10154682419589123
July 20 at 6:16pm · Istanbul, Turkey ·
I was in Taksim square last night- though not for too long. Honestly,
since Saturday morning I was avoiding going there since many of my
friends described the scene as “scary” especially for a woman. They were
talking about how “that crowd” could do anything; they could harass
women; they could beat us all up; they could pull out their knives at
us. (My friends who told me these are all anti-coup people) What I saw
in Taksim last night was obviously not a rally for defending a pluralist
democracy. It was obviously a religious, conservative crowd; some more
religious than others; some more conservative than others. Obviously it
was a crowd who would be against gay pride. Obviously it was a group
pro- death penalty. Obviously it was a crowd who would think having
pre-marital sex is a sin, etc. I can go on with this list. However,
demographically it was not a male dominated crowd for sure. What I saw
there were families more than anything else. And I saw many many old
people. Old women sitting on the ground and praying. I was dressed the
way I usually get dressed in summer: Skirt above knee level. Not a
single person turned around to make a comment at me. Actually not a
single person even stared at me. I did not feel threatened. I felt out
of place, but noone did anything to make me feel out of place. As I left
Taksim towards the end of the rally, I was on the metro with many of
them also going back home. Especially once we were on the metro, outside
of that rally environment, I came to realize that these people are the
same people that I share the metro with everyday during rush hour. One
thing I am sure of is these women are the cleaning ladies who clean our
houses every month; these men are our door keepers, these young people
are the workers who work at our fathers’ workplaces for minimum wage,
these are the people who clean our class rooms at our universities. I am
aware many of my friends will rush to accuse me of being “liberal” and
also not being “aware of the danger.” Obviously I am also as scared as
you are. Obviously I am aware that this “crowd” was not there to
celebrate democracy that we believe in though they were carrying banners
with the word democracy on it. Obviously I am aware of what Erdoğan has
been doing. And obviously I am aware of what type of hegemony is being
established through placing big screens in Taksim square, gathering
people there, reading Quran in Taksim square, and- more importantly and
what is more scary to me- trying to reach a blend of nationalist and
religious identities. Obviously I am not the first person who came up
with these question and I am also aware this is not something peculiar
to Turkey, yet last night I couldn’t stop asking myself the questions at
what point did religious identity and class identity converge so
strongly? What political mechanisms were at work that succeeded to scare
us to such a degree (and I am not saying this fear is totally
unfoundational) that we forgot that the people we are afraid of are
indeed working class people?
Ahmet Süner: They're not there for democracy? What kind of a categorical
judgment is that? pray, what is democracy, if not what these people did
with a lot of grace? You can't dare to name it in the context of these
poor people. Despite all your sincerity, can't you see that you are
repeating a gesture that you appear to critique at the end by admitting
the "humanity" of them. This is called bleeding heart liberalism or
leftism, which assumes proprietary rights over what will be called
democracy or not. While you question your privilege, you do not and
perhaps cannot come to the point of questioning your own epistemological
privilege. You know you know you know what democracy is. Yet, chi sa?
Who ever knows? Life can surprise you and I have been glad to admit
surprise for a while now when it comes to questions of democracy in
Turkey. It's so much better to be completely honest, like you otherwise
are, and admit the pleasant surprise than to go around it, diminishing
its import. I hope you'll boldly move into the direction of letting go
of the essential definition you think you are in the know
Like · Reply · July 20 at 6:57pm · Edited
Senay Ozden If you paid attention I said "pluralist democracy" and
"democracy we believe in". Also, many people at the squares actually
refuse to use the word "democracy", they prefer to use the word
"freedom". So, referring to your point about epistemology, I am not sure
what exactly you are opposing.
Like · Reply · 2 · July 20 at 7:03pm · Edited
_________________________________________________________
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at:
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
