May 6, 1972...
Not a calendar day.
The shadow of a deathbed.
Deniz Gezmiş, Hüseyin İnan, Yusuf Aslan...
They are not a political position,
is the name of a price.
Three young people walking to their deaths for what they believe in.
But today it's not about what they do-
what we turn their name into.
Because history is no longer remembered in Turkey,
is being used.
This use is not an innocent form of remembrance.
This is a selective production of memory.
It is the product of a mentality that magnifies what works for it and silently erases what does not.
And the most dangerous aspect of this mentality is this:
It does not try to understand the past as it is-
according to today's political needs rewrites it.
Ozgur Ozel comes out and
in the midst of current political debates
“The struggle of these friends is the struggle of the Denizens,” he says.
No, no, no.
This is not an analogy.
This is a is an attempt to equalize.
And there is no historical basis for this equation
nor the moral equivalent.
What is being done here is not just a rhetorical move.
This is a conscious expansion of the language of politics
or even more accurately, relaxation.
Because once you open that door,
every struggle can be likened to every struggle.
Every crisis can be legitimized by any historical reference.
And then this happens:
Nothing, really nothing,
cannot be evaluated in its own context.
Today;
Revolving around Uşak, Bolu, Antalya, Görele and Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality
corruption allegations, ethical debates, use of public resources...
(allegations, investigations, publicized files...)
These are serious issues that need to be discussed and explained.
But you're gonna leave this field,
as soon as you make it about a historical symbol -
you are no longer trying to resolve the debate.
You are guiding him.
Take these,
You juxtapose it with a historical struggle that marched to the gallows.
This is not just a mistake.
This is a loss of measure.
But more than that:
This is a deliberate erasure of the boundary between politics and history.
Because when that border is lifted,
No concept can carry its own weight anymore.
Because Deniz Gezmiş's struggle;
- It was not about self-interest
- It wasn't about the seat
- It was not about everyday politics
This struggle can be found right or wrong-
but irreducible.
Today's debates, today's files, today's polemics...
What happens if this reduction is made?
Only history does not shrink.
It will not grow today either.
Both of them it becomes meaningless.
The moment you put these two worlds in the same sentence,
you don't comment anymore-
you are forcing history.
And when history is forced,
before it loses its meaning,
then your dignity.
Is Deniz Gezmiş really being commemorated today?
Or is it possible to create a Is a moral supremacy field being established?
Because they are not the same thing.
The first is memory.
The second is politics.
And the moment you mix the two,
no memory remains
neither politics.
On May 6, it is not just about commemoration.
The point is this:
Are you really trying to understand history,
or are you using it as a tool in today's debates?
If the answer is the latter-
Every sentence you construct is not only controversial,
irresponsible.
THE CENTER OF THE CONTRADICTION: LEFTISM OR LABEL?
Now let's look at a graver picture.
On the one hand:
Berkin Elvan
A break in the memory of this country.
A child.
And someone calls him a bastard.
Arif Kocabıyık
It's not just an insult-
is an attack on public conscience.
Although this statement seems to be directed at an individual, it actually touches the most sensitive nerve endings of a society,
insulting a common pain,
is a language that belittles a memory.
And what is expected in the face of this kind of language is clear:
Distance.
Clarity.
Attitude.
But then what happens?
The same name is being hosted politically,
wearing a badge.
In the same political language, in the same period,
by the same actors.
So on the one hand, it is a word that hurts the social conscience,
on the other hand, a political space opened to the owner of that word.
This is not just a contradiction.
This one, a conscious choice.
Now I ask you:
On the one hand, you say “the struggle of the Denizens”,
On the other hand, you are giving political legitimacy to someone who said this.
How do these two situations stand within the same ideological framework?
It does not stop.
It cannot stop.
But more important is this:
Despite this, they are being kept in the same sentence.
This is the most critical problem of today's political language.
And it doesn't end there.
Cemal Enginyurt and Adnan Beker
“the most left-wing among us” are put on the bus.
Applause.
This is not just a scene from a rally.
This is the manifestation of a mentality.
Because the message in that scene is this:
Ideological background is not important.
Consistency of discourse is not important.
It doesn't matter what you said yesterday.
Today it is important where you stand and what you do.
Now I ask you again:
What is leftism?
An ideological line?
A set of values?
Or is it a handout on stage? label?
If today you call someone “the most leftist”,
If tomorrow you give the same title to someone else-
there is no ideology there anymore.
There are uses there.
But this use comes at a cost.
In the short term, you get applause.
You get expansion.
You bring different sectors together.
But what happens in the long run?
Nothing makes sense.
When a movement begins to stretch its concepts
at first he thinks it's “flexibility”.
But what he is actually doing is this:
Erase your own boundaries.
And when borders are erased,
identity is resolved.
This is exactly what is happening today.
“The word ”left",
and then taken out of its content and turned into a kind of clapping apparatus is being transformed.
“The word ”resistance",
used against every criticism shield it's becoming.
“Deniz Gezmiş” is...
gradually becoming a reference tagwhat is being reduced to.
And that's what happens when you combine all three,
There is no ideology, no struggle.
What emerges:
sloganized emptiness.
FACT:
Leftism;
- Consistency
- It's the price
- Does not tolerate contradiction
But today the language is established:
- It depends on the need
- Stretches according to the person
- Shaped by applause
This is not politics.
This is identity dissolution.
You are a political movement;
- If he can ignore the words spoken to Berkin Elvan,
- If he can speak with a reference to Deniz Gezmiş at the same time,
- If he can distribute the definition of “far leftist” according to the conjuncture-
that movement has to ask itself this question:
Do I really represent a line?,
or am I just using the language of that line?
You make a move,
if it tries to grow by eviscerating its own concepts -
is actually not growing,
is melting itself.
And the most dangerous:
He may not even realize he is doing it.
WHO DOES THIS LANGUAGE SERVE?
Why is this language being established?
The answer is simple:
Because instead of answering difficult questions,
It is easier to draw the discussion on emotional grounds.
It's a reflex.
But it's not just a reflex-
One of the oldest, most functional, most risky reflexes of politics.
Are there allegations of corruption?
→ “The Seas”.
Is there an ethical debate?
→ Say “Struggle”.
Criticism?
→ Say “We are part of that tradition”.
It's over.
The discussion moves elsewhere.
But this shift is no coincidence.
This is a conscious or unconscious manipulation, but one that is very clear in its consequences.
Because when the ground for discussion changes,
the questions also change.
And when the questions change,
the need for accountability disappears.
This is the oldest method of politics:
to generate legitimacy not from reality but from symbol.
HOW DOES THIS MECHANISM WORK?
First there is a crisis.
Then, instead of being answered directly, the crisis is reframed.
That framework is usually this:
- History
- Emotion
- Symbol
And that's what happens when you combine all three,
is an atmosphere that makes criticism difficult.
Because it is no longer about that:
“What did you do?”
It comes down to this:
“Whose side are you on?”
At this point, politics becomes detached from content-
it becomes a battle for identity.
WHY IS MAY 6TH SO USEFUL?
Because May 6th is not neutral.
It has emotion.
It has historical weight.
It has social relevance.
And most importantly:
No one can comfortably speak out against that day.
Because when you oppose, you take a risk.
There is a possibility of misunderstanding.
The social reflex kicks in.
That's why May 6th,
It is one of the areas where politics can most comfortably “take refuge”.
But that's exactly why,
is the area most in need of protection.
LOSS OF MEASURE
But here is what is missing:
History is not a reference.
History is the measure.
This sentence is not just a theoretical statement-
is the basis of political morality.
Because the moment you put yourself in the same sentence with Deniz Gezmiş,
what you're really saying is this:
“I'm on the same plane.”
And are you really?
Is it the same price?
Is there the same risk?
Do you have the same loneliness?
Is there the same consistency?
If the answer to these questions is not clear-
the sentence you constructed is not just weak.
It has collapsed.
SUM OF CONTRADICTIONS A SYSTEM
On the one hand:
Harsh words for Berkin Elvan.
On the other side:
The political space opened to a name like Arif Kocabıyık.
On the other side:
Figures like Cemal Enginyurt and Adnan Beker
“to be presented as ”the most leftist".
And on top of all that:
“The discourse of the ”struggle of the seas".
These are not isolated mistakes.
This is a language system.
Here is the peculiarity of this system:
- Covering up contradictions
- Blurring borders
- Stretching concepts
And finally:
Making everything seem true at the same time
WHO DOES IT BENEFIT?
In the short term:
- Those who avoid criticism
- Those who don't want to be held accountable
- For those who want to control the debate
In the long run?
No one.
Because as this language becomes widespread, society realizes that:
Concepts are being shifted.
History is being instrumentalized.
Ideology is being stretched.
And at that moment the most critical thing happens:
Trust dissolves.
THE TEST OF POLITICS
Politics is not just the art of gaining power.
Politics is also is the art of knowing limits.
Which concept is used where?
Which name is mentioned in which context?
Which date is included in which discussion?
If there are no answers to these questions-
there is no politics there.
There's only There is utilization.
May 6th is not just a day of remembrance.
It is a border.
If you cross that line,
you don't just make a political mistake-
you pollute a memory.
And remember:
Society does not react immediately.
But he does not forget.
It accumulates.
And when the day comes, the discussion comes to this:
Who is not right-
who used what, and how rudely.