Victory
This word has been one of the most critical concepts of class struggle throughout history. But today, especially in Turkey, the concept of victory has not only been eroded; it has been consciously turned inside out.
Because victory is no longer something that is won, but something that is told as if it has been won.
This distinction is vital. Because the most effective way to empty the content of a concept is to popularize its use. The more often the phrase “we won” is used today, the more skeptical one should be. Because this repetition is not an indication of reality, but of a need. And that need is often the need to cover up the truth.
The modern labor regime manages the worker not only in the production process but also at the level of perception. It is no longer only a question of exploiting labor; it is also a question of controlling how to name exploitation. This is why the word “loss” is replaced by “gain” and “retreat” by “strategic success”.
Language changes. Reality remains constant.
Today, when a worker can get his salary and this can be presented as a victory, there is not only an economic but also an ideological break. Because wages are a right that must be given anyway. The return of a usurped right is not a victory. But it is presented as a victory.
Why?
Because the bar has been lowered.
The working class is no longer fighting for better conditions, but to prevent the complete collapse of existing conditions. This is not progress in the classical sense; it is a controlled regression. And this regression is packaged with success stories.
At this point a critical threshold is crossed:
The class begins to misname its own situation.
And this is the most dangerous moment.
Because when a class internalizes its defeat as victory, it is no longer only materially but also intellectually besieged. This is not hegemony in the sense Gramsci describes, but a more advanced stage: An internalized surrender.
There is no need for external coercion anymore. The system speaks its own language in the classroom.
“We resisted and we won.”
Most of the time, this phrase expresses need, not truth. Because it is more bearable to believe that you have won than to accept that you have lost.
But the truth is this:
If a struggle does not create a lasting transformation,
if it does not lead to a structural improvement in the living conditions of the worker,
if the same precariousness continues the next day...
There is no victory.
There is only a defeat better described.
And this defeat is most invisible when it is most applauded.
The Regime of Precarity: The Liquidation of Job Security and the Normalization of Rights Extortion
When job security is de facto eliminated in a country, one can no longer speak of individual violations, but of a regime. This is exactly what is happening in Turkey today: Precarity is the norm, not the exception.
Job security still exists in legal texts. But in practice, this security is constantly being punctured, eroded and eventually rendered dysfunctional. This is because dismissal is not only an economic decision for capital; it is also a disciplinary mechanism.
The worker speaks → he is fired.
Demands rights → is declared a “non-conformist”.
Organized → pushed out of the system.
This chain has become so commonplace that it is often not even discussed. But what is happening here is not an individual victimization, but a collective policy of intimidation.
But the issue is not limited to being fired. The real fracture deepens when the worker is not paid for his or her labor.
Severance pay is either not paid at all or is divided into parts.
Overtime is systematically ignored.
Annual leave remains on paper.
Fees are delayed and underpaid.
And all this remains largely unenforced.
Here, the law seems to step in, but in fact it is spread over time and neutralized. The worker files a lawsuit. Years pass. A decision is issued. But that decision often lags behind life. Inflation, debt, the pressure to make ends meet... All of them have already eroded that “gain”.
So the system works like this:
The right is not given → the seeker is made to pay a price → even if it is won, its value is devalued.
This is not an accidental glitch; it is a rational order.
Because where there is no sanction, cost calculation works, not law. And in this calculation, the rights of the worker often have the lowest priority.
The issue of occupational safety is not outside this framework. Most so-called “occupational accidents” are predictable, preventable and recurring. But they are not prevented. Because prevention is costly and punishment is often cheaper.
At this point, even human life is reduced to an economic variable.
And in such a system, the most tragic thing is this:
Workers are at risk not only while working but also while seeking their rights.
Therefore, every limited step backwards can be presented as a “gain”. Because the overall picture has regressed so much that even the smallest improvement looks like a great success.
But the truth does not change:
If the worker cannot return to work the next day,
if he has to fight for years to get his rights,
if even the most basic security measures are negotiable.
There is no progress.
There is only a more refined precarity.
And this precarity is no longer individual; it is institutionalized.
Crisis of Representation and Controlled Struggle: Who Maintains the Order?
An order is sustained not only by repression. It is also sustained by mechanisms of representation. And if those mechanisms cease to function, the system reproduces itself without the need for repression.
This is precisely one of the most critical problems of the labor struggle today: The crisis of representation.
Because the difference between those who speak on behalf of the workers and those who struggle together with the workers has been gradually erased. When this difference is erased, this is what happens: The struggle appears to exist, but its impact is limited. There is resistance, but it has no direction. There is anger, but it cannot be organized.
This is not a weakness, but often a conscious limitation.
This is the common fate of many resistances today:
It starts, it becomes visible, it intensifies at a certain point...
And then it gets squeezed into a narrow space.
Why?
Because it is not allowed to spread. More precisely, the will to make it spread is not put forward.
As long as a resistance does not spread across the country, it remains manageable for the system. This is why many struggles are geographically and politically isolated. They become symbols, but they cannot become a force.
A resistance that remains in Kurtuluş Park cannot change the country.
But a resistance that is allowed to stay there ceases to be a threat to the system.
The real issue here is this:
Is the struggle being managed, or is it really being amplified?
If the struggle does not go beyond certain limits...
If every crisis is absorbed in a controlled way...
If the results do not lead to structural change...
There is not a lack, but a choice.
At this point we need to look at those who represent:
Those who appear in the square but do not take risks...
Those who take photos with the workers but are nowhere to be seen at the time of the decision...
Those who keep the resistance at a “reasonable” level instead of expanding it...
They are not just passive actors. They play an active role in maintaining this order.
More precisely:
Wherever workers lose, not only the bosses win.
Those who limit the struggle do not lose.
So it is not just an economic issue; it is a political issue.
Unions appearing in a crisis and then retreating...
Political structures distancing themselves from the resistance instead of embracing it...
Solidarity remains symbolic...
None of this is accidental.
Because a real struggle requires a price.
And to pay the price means to risk losing positions.
What is happening today is often the opposite:
A risk-free, controlled, limited practice of “struggle”.
Therefore the result does not change.
The worker is left alone.
Resistance narrows.
And the so-called “gains” are kept at a level that the system can tolerate.
If this is not a failure, what is?
And more importantly:
Isn't this an indication that they really don't want to change?
The True Definition of Victory and Exodus: Right, Assurance, Sanction
It is time to speak without bending any concept.
If a worker is unemployed after claiming his rights...
If the case he won turns into a worthless claim years later.
If occupational safety is still a “possibility” resulting in death...
There are no gains and no victories.
At this point it is necessary to re-establish the definition of victory in a new and harsh way. Because without a clear definition, the struggle will not be clear.
Real victory;
that the worker can go back to work,
receive their rights in full and on time,
where job security is non-negotiable,
and occupational safety is a necessity, not a cost.
Any result below this is incomplete.
Everything that is missing works in favor of the system.
So the solution has to be concrete, not abstract.
First: Job security should no longer be a subject of bargaining.
Dismissal should not be an “administrative right” but an exceptional and reviewable action. No rights are secure unless the dismissal of the right-seeking worker is directly invalidated.
Second: Unpaid entitlements should be sanctioned immediately and severely.
For a worker who cannot get his wages, compensation or overtime, the court system is not a solution, but a belated consolation. Unless the violation of rights is met with automatic sanctions, the system will not change.
Third: Occupational safety must become an area of zero tolerance.
Occupational homicides are not a matter of “fate” but of direct responsibility. Unless this responsibility leads to not only administrative but also criminal consequences, there will be no deterrence.
Fourth: The struggle has to be localized and spread.
Singular resistances, no matter how justified, remain manageable for the system. Only a widespread, united and sustained struggle can generate real power.
Fifth: Representation must be redefined.
If everyone who speaks on behalf of the worker does not bear the same risk as the worker, that representation is not authentic. Unless responsibility, not visibility, is taken as a basis, this crisis will continue.
These articles are not a “suggestion”; they are a necessity.
Because the existing order does not change on its own.
And no system gives the worker his rights voluntarily.
The last word must be clear and uncontested:
If the worker is unemployed the next day,
if he has to fight for years to get his rights,
if it's even left to chance not to die.
That struggle has not been won.
And if, despite this picture, it is still called “victory”,
the problem is not only in the system-
is in those who do not name that system correctly.
True victory is not what is told, but what is lived.
And if it doesn't exist, it doesn't exist.