Ethics: Morality of the State by Mikhail Bakunin

The Theory of Social Contract. Man is not only the most individual being on earth - he is also the most social being. It was a great fallacy on the part of Jean Jacques Rousseau to have assumed that primitive society was established by a free contract entered into by savages. But Rousseau was not the only one to uphold such views. The majority of jurists and modern writers, whether of the Kantian school or of other individualist and liberal schools, who do not accept the theological idea of society being founded upon divine right, nor that of the Hegelian school - of society as the more or less mystic realization of objective morality - nor the primitive animal society of the naturalist school - take nolens volens, for lack of any other foundation, the tacit contract, as their point of departure.

A tacit contract! That is to say, a wordless, and consequently a thoughtless and will-less contract: a revolting nonsense! An absurd fiction, and what is more, a wicked fiction! An unworthy hoax! For it assumes that while I was in a state of not being able to will, to think, to speak, I bound myself and all my descendants - only by virtue of having let myself be victimized without raising any protest - into perpetual slavery.

Lack of Moral Discernment in the State Preceding the Original Social Contract. From the point of view of the system which we are now examining the distinction between good and bad did not exist prior to the conclusion of the social contract. At that time every individual remained isolated in his liberty or in his absolute right, paying no attention to the freedom of others except in those cases wherein such attention was dictated by his weakness or his relative strength - in other words, by his own prudence and interest. At that time egoism, according to the same theory, was the supreme law, the only extant right. The good was determined by success, the bad only by failure, and justice was simply the consecration of the accomplished fact, however horrible, cruel, or infamous it might be - as is the rule in the political morality which now prevails in Europe.

The Social Contract as the Criterion of Good and Bad. The distinction between good and bad, according to this system, began only with the conclusion of the social contract. All that which had been recognized as constituting the general interest was declared to be the good, and everything contrary to it, the bad. Members of society who entered into this compact having become citizens, having bound themselves by solemn obligations, assumed thereby the duty of subordinating their private interests to the common weal, to the inseparable interest of all. They also divorced their individual rights from public rights, the only representative of which - the State - was thereby invested with the power to suppress all the revolts of individual egoism, having, however, the duty of protecting every one of its members in the exercise of his rights in so far as they did not run counter to the general rights of the community.

The State Formed by the Social Contract Is the Modern Atheistic State. Now we are going to examine the nature of the relations which the State, thus constituted, is bound to enter into with other similar States, and also its relations to the population which it governs. Such an analysis appears to us to be the more interesting and useful inasmuch as the State, as defined here, is precisely the modern State in so far as it is divorced from the religious idea: it is the lay State or the atheist State proclaimed by modern writers.

Let us then see wherein this morality consists. The modern State, as we have said, has freed itself from the yoke of the Church and consequently has shaken off the yoke of universal or cosmopolitan morality of the Christian religion, but it has not yet become permeated with the humanitarian idea or ethics - which it cannot do without destroying itself, for in its detached existence and isolated concentration the State is much too narrow to embrace, to contain the interests and consequently the morality of, humanity as a whole.

Ethics Identified with State Interests. Modern States have arrived precisely at that point. Christianity serves them only as a pretext and a phrase, only as a means to fool the simpletons, for the aims pursued by them have nothing in common with religious goals. And the eminent statesmen of our times - the Palmerstons, the Muravievs, the Cavours, the Bismarcks, the Napoleons, would laugh a great deal if their openly professed religious convictions were taken seriously. They would laugh even more if anyone attributed to them humanitarian sentiments, considerations, and intentions, which they have always treated publicly as mere silliness. Then what constitutes their morality? Only State interests. From this point of view, which, with very few exceptions, has been the point of view of statesmen, of strong men of all times and all countries, all that is instrumental in conserving, exalting, and consolidating the power of the State is good-sacrilegious though it might be from a religious point of view and revolting as it might appear from the point of view of human morality - and vice versa, whatever militates against the interests of the State is bad, even if it be in other respects the most holy and humanely just thing. Such is the true morality and secular practice of all States.

The Collective Egoism of Particular Associations Raised into Ethical Categories.the common interest and the public right of all individuals who formed this contract, with the exception of those who remained outside of it. Consequently, by good in this system is meant only the greatest satisfaction given to the collective egoism of a particular and limited association, which, being founded upon the partial sacrifice of the individual egoism of every one of its members, excludes from its midst, as strangers and natural enemies, the vast majority of the human species whether or not it is formed into similar associations. Such also is the morality of the State founded upon the theory a of social contract. According to this system, the good and the just, since they begin only with the social contract, are in fact nothing but the content and the end purpose of the contract - that is to say,

Morality Is Co-Extensive Only With the Boundaries of Particular States. The existence of a single limited State necessarily presupposed the existence, and if necessary provokes the formation of several States, it being quite natural that the individuals who find themselves outside of this State and who are menaced by it in their existence and liberty, should in turn league themselves against it. Here we have humanity broken up into an indefinite number of States which are foreign, hostile, and menacing toward one another.

There is no common right, and no social contract among them, for if such a contract and right existed, the various States would cease to be absolutely independent of one another, becoming federated members of one great State. Unless this great State embraces humanity as a whole, it will necessarily have against it the hostility of other great States, federated internally. Thus war would always be supreme law and the inherent necessity of the very existence of humanity.

Jungle Law Governs Interrelations of States. Every State, whether it is of a federative or a non-federative character, must seek, under the penalty of utter ruin, to become the most powerful of States. It has to devour others in order not to be devoured in turn, to conquer in order not to be conquered, to enslave in order not to be enslaved - for two similar and at the same time alien powers, cannot co-exist without destroying each other.

The Universal Solidarity of Humanity Disrupted by the State. The state then is the most flagrant negation, the most cynical and complete negation of humanity. It rends apart the universal solidarity of all men upon earth, and it unites some of them only in order to destroy, conquer, and enslave all the rest. It takes under its protection only its own citizens, and it recognizes human right, humanity, and civilization only within the confines of its own boundaries. And since it does not recognize any right outside of its own confines, it quite logically arrogated to itself the right to treat with the most ferocious inhumanity all the foreign populations whom it can pillage, exterminate, or subordinate to its will. If it displays generosity or humanity toward them, it does it in no case out of any sense of duty: and that is because it has no duty but to itself, and toward those of its members who formed it by an act of free agreement, who continue constituting it on the same free bases, or, as it happens in the long run, have become its subjects.

Since international law does not exist, and since it never can exist in a serious and real manner without undermining the very foundations of the principle of absolute State sovereignty, the State cannot have any duties toward foreign populations. If then it treats humanely a conquered people, if it does not go to the full length in pillaging and exterminating it, and does not reduce it to the last degree of slavery, it does so perhaps because of considerations of political expediency and prudence, or even because of pure magnanimity, but never because of duty - for it has an absolute right to dispose of them in any way it deems fit.

Patriotism Runs Counter to Ordinary Human Morality. This flagrant negation of humanity, which constitutes the very essence of the State, is from the point of view of the latter the supreme duty and the greatest virtue: it is called patriotism and it constitutes the transcendent morality of the State. We call it the transcendent morality because ordinarily it transcends the level of human morality and justice, whether private or common, and thereby it often sets itself in shard contradiction to them. Thus, for instance, to offend, oppress, rob, plunder, assassinate, or enslave one's fellow man is, to the ordinary morality of man, to commit a serious crime.

In public life, on the contrary, from the point of view of patriotism, when it is done for the greater glory of the State in order to conserve or to enlarge its power, all that becomes a duty and a virtue. And this duty, this virtue, are obligatory upon every patriotic citizen. Everyone is expected to discharge those duties not only in respect to strangers but in respect to his fellow citizens, members and subjects of the same State, whenever the welfare of the State demands it from him.

The Supreme Law of the State. The supreme law of the State is self-preservation at any cost. And since all States, ever since they came to exist upon the earth, have been condemned to perpetual struggle - a struggle against their own populations, whom they oppress and ruin, a struggle against all foreign States, every one of which can be strong only if the others are weak - and since the States cannot hold their own in this struggle unless they constantly keep on augmenting their power against their own subjects as well as against the neighborhood States - it follows that the supreme law of the State is the augmentation of its power to the detriment of internal liberty and external justice.

The State Aims to Take the Place of Humanity. Such is in its stark reality the sole morality, the sole aim of the State. It worships God himself only because he is its own exclusive God, the sanction of its power and of that which it calls its right, that is, the right to exist at any cost and always to expand at the cost of other States. Whatever serves to promote this end is worthwhile, legitimate, and virtuous. Whatever harms it is criminal. The morality of the State then is the reversal of human justice and human morality.

This transcendent, super-human, and therefore anti-human morality of States is not only the result of the corruption of men who are charged with carrying on State functions. One might say with greater right that corruption of men is the natural and necessary sequel of the State institution. This morality is only the development of the fundamental principle of the State, the inevitable expression of its inherent necessity. The State is nothing else but the negation of humanity; it is a limited collectivity which aims to take the place of humanity and which wants to impose itself upon the latter as a supreme goal, while everything else is to submit and minister to it.

The Idea of Humanity, Absent in Ancient Times, Has Become a Power in Our Present Life. That was natural and easily understood in ancient times when the very idea of humanity was unknown, and when every people worshiped its exclusively national gods, who gave it the right of life and death over all other nations. Human right existed only in relation to the citizens of the State. Whatever remained outside of the State was doomed to pillage, massacre, and slavery.

Now things have changed. The idea of humanity becomes more and more of a power in the civilized world, and, owing to the expansion and increasing speed of means of communication, and also owing to the influence, still more material than moral, of civilization upon barbarous peoples, this idea of humanity begins to take hold even of the minds of uncivilized nations. This idea is the invisible power of our century, with which the present powers - the States - must reckon. They cannot submit to it of their own free will because such submission on their part would be equivalent to suicide, since the triumph of humanity can be realized only through the destruction of the States. But the States can no longer deny this idea nor openly rebel against it, for having now grown too strong, it may finally destroy them.

The State Has to Recognize In Its Own Hypocritical Manner the Powerful Sentiment of Humanity. In the face of this fainful alternative there remains only one way out: and that it hypocrisy. The States pay their outward respects to this idea of humanity; they speak and apparently act only in the name of it, but they violate it every day. This, however, should not be held against the States. They cannot act otherwise, their position having become such that they can hold their own only by lying. Diplomacy has no other mission.

Therefore what do we see? Every time a State wants to declare war upon another State, it starts off by launching a manifesto addressed not only to its own subjects but to the whole world. In this manifesto it declares that right and justice are on its side, and it endeavors to prove that it is actuated only by love of peace and humanity and that, imbued with generous and peaceful sentiments, it suffered for a long time in silence until the mounting iniquity of its enemy forced it to bare its sword. At the same time it vows that, disdainful of all material conquest and not seeking any increase in territory, it will put and end to this war as soon as justice is reestablished. And its antagonist answers with a similar manifesto, in which naturally right, justice, humanity, and all the generous sentiments are to be found respectively on its side.

Those mutually opposed manifestos are written with the same eloquence, they breathe the same virtuous indignation, and one is just as sincere as the other; that is to say both of them are equally brazen in their lies, and it is only fools who are deceived by them. Sensible persons, all those who have had some political experience, do not even take the trouble of reading such manifestos. On the contrary, they seek ways to uncover the interests driving both adversaries into this war, and to weigh the respective power of each of them in order to guess the outcome of the struggle. Which only goes to prove that moral issues are not at stake in such wars.

Perpetual War Is the Price of the State's Existence. The rights of peoples, as well as the treaties regulating the relations of the States, lack any moral sanction. In every definite historic epoch they are the material expression of the equilibrium resulting from the mutual antagonism of States. So long as States exist, there will be no peace. There will be only more or less prolonged respites, armistes concluded by the perpetually belligerent States; but as soon as the State feels sufficiently strong to destroy this equilibrium to its advantage, it will never fail to do so. The history of humanity fully bears out this point.

Crimes Are the Moral Climate of States. This explains to us why ever since history began, that is, ever since States came into existence, the political world has always been and still continues to be the stage for high knavery and unsurpassed brigandage - brigandage and knavery which are held in high honor, since they are ordained by patriotism, transcendent morality, and by the supreme interest of the State. This explains to us why all the history of ancient and modern States is nothing more than a series of revolting crimes; why present and past kings and ministers of all times and of all countries - statesmen, diplomats, bureaucrats, and warriors - if judged from the point of view of simple morality and human justice, deserve a thousand times the gallows of penal servitude.

For there is no terror, cruelty, sacrilege, perjury, imposture, infamous transaction, cynical theft, brazen robbery or foul treason which has not been committed and all are still being committed daily by representatives of the State, with no other excuse than this elastic, at times so convenient and terrible phrase Reason of State. A terrible phrase indeed! For it has corrupted and dishonored more people in official circles and in the governing classes of society than Christianity itself. As soon as it is uttered everything becomes silent and drops out of sight: honesty, honor, justice, right, pity itself vanishes and with it logic and sound sense; black becomes white and white becomes black, the horrible becomes humane, and the most dastardly felonies and most atrocious crimes become meritorious acts.

Crime - the Privilege of the State. What is permitted to the State is forbidden to the individual. Such is the maxim of all governments. Machiavelli said it, and history as well as the practice of all contemporary governments bear him out on that point. Crime is the necessary condition of the very existence of the State, and it therefore constitutes its exclusive monopoly, from which it follows that the individual who dares commit a crime is guilty in a two-fold sense: first, he is guilty against human conscience, and, above all, he is guilty against the State in arrogating to himself one of its most precious privileges.

State Morality According to Machiavelli. The great Italian political philosopher, Machiavelli, was the first who gave currency to this phrase (reason of State), or at least he gave it its true meaning and the immense popularity which it has enjoyed ever since in governmental circles. Realistic and positive thinker that he was, he came to understand - and he was the first one in this respect - that the great and powerful States could be founded and maintained only by crime - by many great crimes - and by a thorough contempt for anything called honesty.

He wrote, explained, and argued his case with terrible frankness. And since the idea of humanity was wholly ignored in his time; since the idea of fraternity - not human, but religious - preached by the Catholic Church had been, as it always is, nothing but a ghastly irony belied at every instant by the acts of the Church itself; since in his time no one believed that there, was such a thing as popular rights - the people having been considered an inert and inept mass, a sort of cannon-fodder for the State, to be taxed impressed into forced labor and kept in a state of eternal obedience; in view of all this Machiavelli arrived quite logically at the idea that the State was the supreme goal of human existence, that it had to be served at any cost, and that since the interest of the State stood above everything else, a good patriot should not recoil from any crime in order to serve the State.

Machiavelli counsels recourse to crime, urges it, and makes it the sine qua non of political intelligence as well as of true patriotism. Whether the State is called monarchy or republic, crime will always be necessary to maintain and assure its triumph. This crime will no doubt change its direction and object, but its nature will remain the same. It will always be the forced and abiding violation of justice and of honesty - for the good of the State.

Wherein Machiavelli Was Wrong. Yes, Machiavelli was right: we cannot doubt it now that we have the experience of three and a half centuries added to his own experience. Yes, History tells us that while small States are virtuous because of their feebleness, powerful States sustain themselves only through crime. But our conclusion will differ radically from that of Machiavelli, and the reason thereof is quite simple: we are the sons of the Revolution and we have inherited from it the Religion of Humanity which we have to found upon the ruins of the Religion of Divinity. We believe in the rights of man, in the dignity and necessary emancipation of the human species. We believe in human liberty and human fraternity based upon human justice.

Patriotism Deciphered. We have already seen that by excluding the vast majority of humanity from its midst, by placing it outside of the obligations and reciprocal duties of morality, of justice, and of right, the State denies humanity with this high-sounding word, Patriotism, and imposes injustice and cruelty upon all of its subjects as their supreme duty.

Man's Original Wickedness - the Theoretical Premise of the State. Every State, like every theology, assumes that man is essentially wicked and bad. In the State which we are going to examine now, the good, as we have already seen, begins with the conclusion of the social contract, and therefore is only the product of this contract - its very content. It is not the product of liberty. On the contrary, so long as men remain isolated in their absolute individuality, enjoying all their natural liberty, recognizing no limits to this liberty but those imposed by fact and not by right, they follow only one law - the law of natural egoism.

They insult, maltreat, rob, murder, and devour one another, everyone according to the measure of his intelligence, of his cunning, and of his material forces, as is now being done by the States. Hence human liberty produces not good but evil, man being bad by nature. How did he become bad? That is for theology to explain. The fact is that the State, when it came into existence, found man already in that state and it set for itself the task of making him good; that is to say, of transforming the natural man into a citizen.

One might say to this that inasmuch as the State is the product of a contract freely concluded by men and since good is the product of the State, it follows that it is the product of liberty. This, however, would be an utterly wrong conclusion. The State, even according to this theory, is not the product of liberty, but, on the contrary, the product of the voluntary negation and sacrifice of liberty. Natural men, absolutely free from the point of view of right, but in fact exposed to all the dangers which at every instant of their lives menace their security, in order to assure and safeguard the latter sacrifice, abdicate a greater or lesser portion of their liberty, and inasmuch as they sacrifice it for the sake of their security, insofar as they become citizens, they also become the slaves o f the State. Therefore we have the right to affirm that from the point of view of the State the good arises not from liberty, but, on the contrary, from the negation of liberty.

Theology and Politics. Is it not remarkable, this similitude between theology (the science of the Church) and politics (the theory of the State), this convergence of two apparently contrary orders of thoughts and facts upon one and the same conviction: that of the necessity of sacrificing human liberty in order to make men into moral beings and transform them into saints, according to some, and virtuous citizens, according to others? As for us, we are hardly surprised at it, for we are convinced that politics and theology are both closely related, stemming from the same origin and pursuing the same aim under two different names; we are convinced that every State is a terrestrial Church, just as every Church with its Heaven the abode of the blessed and the immortal gods - is nothing but a celestial State.

The Similarity of the Ethical Premises of Theology and Politics. The State then, like the Church, starts with this fundamental assumption that all men are essentially bad and that when left to their natural liberty they will tear one another apart and will offer the spectacle of the most frightful anarchy wherein the strongest will kill or exploit the weaker ones. And is not this just the contrary of what is now taking place in our exemplary States?

Likewise the State posits as a principle the following tenet: In order to establish public order it is necessary to have a superior authority; in order to guide men and repress their wicked passions, it is necessary to have a leader, and also to impose a curb upon the people, but this authority must be vested in a man of virtuous genius, a legislator for his people, like Moses, Lycurgus, or Solon - and that leader and that curb will embody the wisdom and the repressive power of the State.

Society not a Product of a Contract. The State is a transitory historic form, a passing form of society - like the Church, of which it is a younger brother - but it lacks the necessary and immutable character of society which is anterior to all development of humanity and which, partaking fully of the almighty power of natural laws, acts, and manifestations, constitutes the very basis of human existence. Man is born into society just as an ant is born into its ant-hill or a bee into its hive; man is born into society from the very moment that he takes his first step toward humanity, from the moment that he becomes a human being that is, a being possessing to a greater or lesser extent the power of thought and speech. Man does not choose society; on the contrary, he is the product of the latter, and he is just as inevitably subject to the natural laws governing his essential development as to all the other natural laws which he must obey.

Revolt Against Society Inconceivable. Society antedates and at the same time survives every human individual, being in this respect like Nature itself. It is eternal like Nature, or rather, having been born upon our earth it will last as long as the earth. A radical revolt against society would therefore be just as impossible for man as a revolt against Nature, human society being nothing else but the last great manifestation or creation of Nature upon this earth. And an individual who would want to rebel a gainst s city that is, against Nature in general and his own nature in particular - would place himself beyond the pale of real existence, would plunge into nothingness, into an absolute void, into lifeless abstraction, into God.

So it follows that it is just as impossible to ask whether society is good or evil as it is to ask whether Nature - the universal, material, real, absolute, soul and supreme being - is good or evil. It is much more than that: it is an immense, positive, and primitive fact, having had existence prior to all consciousness, to all ideas, to all intellectual and moral discernment; it is the very basis, it is the world in which, inevitably and at a much later stage, there began to develop that which we call good and evil.

The State a Historically Necessary Evil. It is not so with the State. And I do not hesitate to say that the State is an evil but a historically necessary evil, as necessary in the past as its complete extinction will be necessary sooner or later, just as necessary as primitive bestiality and theological divigations were necessary in the past. The State is not society; it is only one of its its historical forms, as brutal as it is abstract in character. Historically, it arose in all countries out of the marriage of violence, rapine, and pillage - in a word, of war and conquest - with the Gods created in succession by the theological fancies of the nations. From its very beginning it has been - and still remains - the divine sanction of brutal force and triumphant iniquity. Even in the most democratic countries, like the United States of America and Switzerland, it is simply the consecration of the privileges of some minority and the actual enslavement of the vast majority.

Revolt Against the State. Revolt against the State is much easier because there is something in the nature of the State which provokes rebellion. The State is authority, it is force, it is the ostentatious display of and infatuation with Power. It does not seek to ingratiate itself, to win over, to convert. Every time it intervenes, it does so with particularly bad grace. For by its very nature it cannot persuade but must impose and exert force. However hard it may try to disguise this nature, it will still remain the legal violator of man's will and the permanent denial of his liberty.

Morality Presupposes Freedom. And even when the State enjoins something good, it undoes and spoils it precisely because the latter comes in the form of a command, and because every command provokes and arouses the legitimate revolt of freedom; and also because, from the point of view of true morality, of human and not divine morality, the good which is done by command from above ceases to be good and thereby becomes evil, Liberty, morality, and the humane dignity of man consist precisely in that man does good not because he is ordered to do so, but because he conceives it, wants it, and loves it.

Read rest of entry

Stateless Socialism: Anarchism

Effect of the Great Principles Proclaimed by the French Revolution. From the time when the Revolution brought down to the masses its Gospel - not the mystic but the rational, not the heavenly but the earthly, not the divine but the human Gospel, the Gospel of the Rights of Man - ever since it proclaimed that all men are equal, that all men are entitled to liberty and equality, the masses of all European countries, of all the civilized world, awakening gradually from the sleep which had kept them in bondage ever since Christianity drugged them with its opium, began to ask themselves whether they too, had the right to equality, freedom, and humanity.

As soon as this question was posed, the people, guided by their admirable sound sense as well as by their instincts, realized that the first condition of their real emancipation, or of their humanization, was above all a radical change in their economic situation. The question of daily bread is to them justly the first question, for as it was noted by Aristotle, man, in order to think, in order to feel himself free, in order to become man, must be freed from the material cares of daily life. For that matter, the bourgeois, who are so vociferous in their outcries against the materialism of the people and who preach to the latter the abstinences of idealism, know it very well, for they themselves preach it only by word and not by example.

The second question arising before the people - that of leisure after work - is the indispensable condition of humanity. But bread and leisure can never be obtained apart from a radical transformation of existing society, and that explains why the Revolution, impelled by the implications of its own principles, gave birth to Socialism.

Socialism Is Justice...Socialism is justice. When we speak of justice, we understand thereby not the justice contained in the Codes and in Roman jurisprudence - which were based to a great extent upon facts of violence achieved by force, violence consecrated by time and by the benedictions of some church or other (Christian or pagan), and as such accepted as absolute principles, from which all law is to be deduced by a process of logical reasoning - no, we speak of that justice which is based solely upon human conscience, the justice to be found in the consciousness of every man - even in that of children - and which can be expressed in a single word: equity.

This universal justice which, owing to conquests by force and religious influences, has never yet prevailed in the political or juridical or economic worlds, should become the basis of the new world. Without it there can be neither liberty, nor republic, nor prosperity, nor peace. It then must govern our resolutions in order that we work effectively toward the establishment of peace. And this justice urges us to take upon ourselves the defense of the interests of the terribly maltreated people and demand their economic and social emancipation along with political freedom.

The Basic Principle of Socialism. We do not propose here, gentlemen, this or any other socialist system. What we demand now is the proclaiming anew of the great principle of the French Revolution: that every human being should have the material and moral means to develop all his humanity, a principle which, in our opinion, is to be translated into the following problem:

To organize society in such a manner that every individual, man or woman, should find, upon entering life, approximately equal means for the development of his or her diverse faculties and their utilization in his or her work. And to organize such a society that, rendering impossible the exploitation of anyone's labor, will enable every individual to enjoy the social wealth, which in reality is produced only by collective labor, but to enjoy it only in so far as he contributes directly toward the creation of that wealth.

State Socialism Rejected. The carrying out of this task will of course take centuries of development. But history has already brought it forth and henceforth we cannot ignore it without condemning ourselves to utter impotence. We hasten to add here that we vigorously reject any attempt at social organization which would not admit the fullest liberty of individuals and organizations, or which would require the setting up of any regimenting power whatever. In the name of freedom, which we recognize as the only foundation and the only creative principle of organization, economic or political, we shall protest against anything remotely resembling State Communism, or State Socialism.

Abolition of the Inheritance Law. The only thing which, in opinion, the State can and should do, is first to modify little by little inheritance law so as to arrive as soon as possible at its complete abolition. That law being purely a creation of the State, and one of the conditions of the very existence of the authoritarian and divine State can and should be abolished by freedom in the State. In other words, State should dissolve itself into a society freely organized in accord with the principles of justice. Inheritance right, in our opinion, should abolished, for so long as it exists there will be hereditary economic inequality, not the natural inequality of individuals, but the artificial man inequality of classes - and the latter will always beget hereditary equality in the development and shaping of minds, continuing to be source and consecration of all political and social inequalities. The task of justice is to establish equality for everyone, inasmuch that equality will depend upon the economic and political organization society - an equality with which everyone is going to begin his life, that everyone, guided by his own nature, will be the product of his own efforts. In our opinion, the property of the deceased should accrue to social fund for the instruction and education of children of both sexes including their maintenance from birth until they come of age. As Slavs and as Russians, we shall add that with us the fundamental social idea, bas upon the general and traditional instinct of our populations, is that las the property of all the people, should be owned only by those who cultivate it with their own hands.

We are convinced gentlemen, that this principle is just, that it is essential and inevitable condition of all serious social reform, and consequently Western Europe in turn will not fail to recognize and accept this principle, notwithstanding the difficulties of its realization in countries as in France, for instance where the majority of peasants own the land which they cultivate, but where most of those very peasants will soon end up by owning next to nothing, owing to the parceling out of land coming as the inevitable result of the political and economic system now prevailing in France. We shall, however, refrain from offering any proposals on the land question...We shall confine ourselves now to proposing the following declaration:

The Declaration of Socialism. "Convinced that the serious realization of liberty, justice, and peace will be impossible so long as the majority of the population remains dispossessed of elementary needs, so long as it is deprived of education and is condemned to political and social insignificance and slavery - in fact if not by law - by poverty as well as by the necessity of working without rest or leisure, producing all the wealth upon which the world now prides itself, and receiving in return only such a small pan thereof that it hardly suffices to assure its livelihood for the next day;

"Convinced that for all that mass of population, terribly maltreated for centuries, the problem of bread is the problem of mental emancipation, of freedom and humanity;

"Convinced that freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice and that Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality;

"The League [for Peace and Freedom] loudly proclaims the necessity of a radical social and economic reconstruction, having for its aim the emancipation of people's labor from the yoke of capital and property owners, a reconstruction based upon strict justice - neither juridical nor theological nor metaphysical justice, but simply human justice - upon positive science and upon the widest freedom."

Organization of Productive Forces in Place of Political Power. It is necessary to abolish completely, both in principle and in fact, all that which is called political power; for, so long as political power exists, there will be ruler and ruled, masters and slaves, exploiters and exploited. Once abolished, political power should be replaced by an organization of productive forces and economic service.

Notwithstanding the enormous development of modern states - a development which in its ultimate phase is quite logically reducing the State to an absurdity - it is becoming evident that the days of the State and the State principle are numbered. Already we can see approaching the full emancipation of the toiling masses and their free social organization, free from governmental intervention, formed by economic associations of the people and brushing aside all the old State frontiers and national distinctions, and having as its basis only productive labor, humanized labor, having one common interest in spite of its diversity.

The Ideal of the People. This ideal of course appears to the people as signifying first of all the end of want, the end of poverty, and the full satisfaction of all material needs by means of collective labor, equal and obligatory for all, and then, as the end of domination and the free organization of the people's lives in accordance with their needs - not from the top down, as we have it in the State, but from the bottom up, an organization formed by the people themselves, apart from all governments and parliaments, a free union of associations of agricultural and factory workers, of communes, regions, and nations, and finally, in the more remote future; the universal human brotherhood, triumphing above the ruins of all States.

The Program of a Free Society. Outside of the Mazzinian system which is the system of the republic in the form of a State, there is no other system but that of the republic as a commune, the republic as a federation, a Socialist and a genuine people's republic - the system of Anarchism. It is the politics of the Social Revolution, which aims at the abolition of the State, and the economic, altogether free organization of the people, an organization from below upward, by means of a federation.

...There will be no possibility of the existence of a political government, for this government will be transformed into a simple administration of common affairs.

Our program can be summed up in a few words:

Peace, emancipation, and the happiness of the oppressed.

War upon all oppressors and all despoilers.

Full restitution to workers: all the capital, the factories, and all instruments of work and raw materials to go to the associations, and the land to those who cultivate it with their own hands.

Liberty, justice, and fraternity in regard to all human beings upon the earth.

Equality for all.

To all, with no distinction whatever, all the means of development, education, and upbringing, and the equal possibility of living while working.

Organizing of a society by means of a free federation from below upward, of workers associations, industrial as well as a agricultural, scientific as well as literary associations - first into a commune, then a federation communes into regions, of regions into nations, and of nations into international fraternal association.

Correct Tactics During a Revolution. In a social revolution, which in everything is diametrically opposed to a political revolution, the a of individuals hardly count at all, whereas the spontaneous action of masses is everything. All that individuals can do is to clarify, propagate, and work out ideas corresponding to the popular instinct, and, what is more, to contribute their incessant efforts to revolutionary organization of the natural power of the masses - but nothing else beyond that; the rest can and should be done by the people themselves. Any other method would lead to political dictatorship, to the re-emergence of the State, of privileges of inequalities of all the oppressions of the State - that is, it would lead in a roundabout but logical way toward re-establishment of political, social, and economic slavery of the masses of people.

Varlin and all his friends, like all sincere Socialists, and in general like all workers born and brought up among the people, shared to a high degree this perfectly legitimate bias against the initiative coming from isolated individuals, against the domination exercised by superior individuals, and being above all consistent, they extended the same prejudice and distrust to their own persons.

Revolution by Decrees Is Doomed to Failure. Contrary to the ideas of the authoritarian Communists, altogether fallacious ideas in my opinion, that the Social Revolution can be decreed and organized by means of a dictatorship or a Constituent Assembly - our friends, the Parisian Social-Socialists, held the opinion that that revolution can be waged and brought to fits full development only through the spontaneous and continued mass action of groups and associations of the people.

Our Parisian friends were a thousand times right. For, indeed, there is no mind, much as it may be endowed with the quality of a genius; or if we speak of a collective dictatorship consisting of several hundred supremely endowed individuals - there is no combination of intellects so vast as to be able to embrace all the infinite multiplicity and diversity of the real interests, aspirations, wills, and needs constituting in their totality the collective will of the people; there is no intellect that can devise a social organization capable of satisfying each and all.

Such an organization would ever be a Procrustean bed into which violence, more or less sanctioned by the State, would force the unfortunate society. But it is this old system of organization based upon force that the Social Revolution should put an end to by giving full liberty to the masses, groups, communes, associations, and even individuals, and by destroying once and for all the historic cause of all violence - the very existence of the State, the fall of which will entail the destruction of all the iniquities of juridical right and all the falsehood of various cults, that right and those cults having ever been simply the complaisant consecration, ideal as well as real, of all violence represented, guaranteed, and authorized by the State.

It is evident that only when the State has ceased to exist humanity will obtain its freedom, and the true interests of society, of all groups, of all local organizations, and likewise of all the individuals forming such organization, will find their real satisfaction.

Free Organization to Follow Abolition of the State. Abolition of the State and the Church should be the first and indispensable condition of the real enfranchisement of society. It will be only after this that society can and should begin its own reorganization; that, however, should take place not from the top down, not according to an ideal plan mapped by a few sages or savants, and not by means of decrees issued by some dictatorial power or even by a National Assembly elected by universal suffrage. Such a system, as I have already said, inevitably would lead to the formation of a governmental aristocracy, that is, a class of persons which has nothing in common with the masses of people; and, to be sure, this class would again turn to exploiting and enthralling the masses under the pretext of common welfare or of the salvation of the State.

Freedom Must Go Hand-in-Hand With Equality. I am a convinced partisan of economic and social equality, for I know that outside of this equality, freedom, justice, human dignity, morality, and the well-being of individuals as well as the prosperity of nations are all nothing but so many falsehoods. But being at the same time a partisan of freedom - the first condition of humanity - I believe that equality should be established in the world by a spontaneous organization of labor and collective property, by the free organization of producers' associations into communes, and free federation of communes - but nowise by means of the supreme tutelary action of the State.

The Difference Between Authoritarian and Libertarian Revolution. It is this point which mainly divides the Socialists or revolutionary collectivists from the authoritarian Communists, the partisans of the absolute initiative of the State. The goal of both is the same: both parties want the creation of a new social order based exclusively upon collective labor, under economic conditions that are equal for all - that is, under conditions of collective ownership of the tools of production.

Only the Communists imagine that they can attain through development and organization of the political power of the working classes, and chiefly of the city proletariat, aided by bourgeois radicalism - whereas the revolutionary Socialists, the enemies of all ambiguous alliances, believe, on the contrary, that this common goal can be attained not through the political but through the social (and therefore anti-political) organization and power of the working masses of the cities and villages, including all those who, though belonging by birth to the higher classes, have broken with their past of their own free will, and have openly joined the proletariat and accepted its program.

The Methods of the Communists and the Anarchists. Hence the two different methods. The Communists believe that it is necessary to organize the forces of the workers in order to take possession of the political might of the State. The revolutionary Socialists organize with the view of destroying, or if you prefer a more refined expression, of liquidating the State. The Communists are the partisans of the principle and practice of authority, while revolutionary Socialists place their faith only in freedom. Both are equally the partisans of science, which is to destroy superstition and take the place of faith; but the first want to impose science upon the people, while the revolutionary collectivists try to diffuse science and knowledge among the people, so that the various groups of human society, when convinced by propaganda, may organize and spontaneously combine into federations, in accordance with their natural tendencies and their real interests, but never according to a plan traced in advance and imposed upon the ignorant masses by a few "superior" minds.

Revolutionary Socialists believe that there is much more of practical reason and intelligence in the instinctive aspirations and real needs of the masses of people than in the profound minds of all these learned doctors and self-appointed tutors of humanity, who, having before them the sorry examples of so many abortive attempts to make humanity happy, still intend to keep on working in the same direction. But revolutionary Socialists believe, on the contrary, that humanity has permitted itself to be ruled for a long time, much too long, and that the source of its misfortune lies not in this nor in any other form of government but in the principle and the very existence of the government, whatever its nature may be.

It is this difference of opinion, which already has become historic, that now exists between the scientific Communism, developed by the German school and partly accepted by American and English Socialists, and Proudhonism, extensively developed and pushed to its ultimate conclusions, and by now accepted by the proletariat of the Latin countries. Revolutionary Socialism has made its first brilliant and practical appearance in the Paris Commune.

On the Pan-German banner is written: Retention and strengthening of the State at any cost. On our banner, the social-revolutionary banner, on the contrary, are inscribed, in fiery and bloody letters: the destruction of all States, the annihilation of bourgeois civilization, free and spontaneous organization from below upward, by means of free associations, the organization of the unbridled rabble of toilers, of all emancipated humanity, and the creation of a new universally human world.

Before creating, or rather aiding the people to create, this new organization, it is necessary to achieve a victory. It is necessary to overthrow that which is, in order to be able to establish that which should be...

Read rest of entry

Etik

Efenim ahlak ve ahlaksizlik ve ahlaklilik ve hatta ablaklilik da hep birlikte sorumluluk kavramiyla yakindan iliskilidir.canli davranisindan ne kadar sorumludur bu davranisi veya dusunceyi ne kadar kontrol edebiliyor bu onemlidir kisacasi hersey gelip ozgur irade sorusunda dugumleniyor.

Simdi kant efendi kendine yapilmasini istemedigi halde bir baskasinin karisina sulanmissa ahlaksizdir diyebilir miyiz? veya marx kabilesindeki erkekler avdayken gidip karilariyla yatarak, toplumsal acidan karisiklik doguracagi asikar bir duruma yolactigi icin ahlaksizdir diyebilir miyiz?onlarin goruslerine gore deriz. deriz ve ahlaksiz diye adami etiketleriz, onu davranislarindan sorumlu tutariz.

Oysa ki gercekten ahlaksiz olan bu kisi midir? Demek istedigim, kant gidip elalemin karisiyla fingirdesirken bunu ozgur iradesiyle isteyerek mi yapmistir? "Kantin bilinci" midir bu ahlaksizligi yapan, yoksa derinde daha kuvvetli etkenler mi var. genler, hormonlar psikolojik sartlandirma eski tecrubeler ve travmalar... Kant sadece mantik ve bilincten olusan biriymis gibi onu cezalandiriyoruz oysa ki davranisi etkileyen genetik ve kultur gibi unsurlarin buyuk kismi bireyden cok otede olgular tur duzeyinde olgular. bunlarin faturasini, bir iki milyar hucreden olusmus zavalli bir insana kesmek dogru mudur?

Angelina jolie- brad pittin agir tahrigine maruz kaldim o yuzden tecavuz ettim (bilerek edildim)" dersek ozgur iradenin oldugunu dusunenler tarafindan, cinayetten sorumlu tutuluruz. lakin biri sizi laborotuvara kapatip bir suru hormon dayasa ve karisiniza jolie kadinini (pitt erkegini) cikarsa sonuclarindan daha az sorumlu oldugunuz dusunulur. Dolayisiyla bir seyin ahlaki acidan degerlendirilebilmesi icin (sorumlulugunun bulunmasi icin), kendi kendinin nedeni olmasi gerekir, yani neden sonuc iliskisinde sorumlulugunu atabilecegi bir baglantisi olmamalidir. Evrende kendi kendinin nedeni olabilen birsey dusunebiliyor musunuz? boyle bir sey olsa bile, kimin ve neyin kistasina gore degerlendirilebilir? Siz yercekimi yasasini ahlak kavraminin icine koyabilir misiniz veya elektromanyetizma ahlaksizliktir denebilir mi? dolayisiyla, evrensel ahlak diye birsey sozkonusu olamaz.

Burada onemli olan ahlakin varligi icin felsefi olarak bizi ikna etmis olmasina gerek olmayisidir. yani ahlak sosyal yasami duzenleme ve orgutleme aracidir, evrimin epey sondaki donemlerine denk gelir cikisi. bu nedenledir ki sosyal yasami surdurulebilir kilmak icin bazen kisileri sorumlu olmadiklari halde sorumlu tutmamiz gerekir. Kantin komusunun cekici karisina kapilip gitmesi onun birey olarak bir sucu olmasa da, bu durumu ahlaksiz saymak toplumun devamliligi icin sarttir. Fakat cok karmasik bir yapi olan toplumu incelerken hangi hareketin toplumu kisa ve uzun vadede nasil etkileyecegini kestirmek olanaksizdir o yuzden marxin ahlak anlayisi da genel-gecer olamaz.

butun bunlardan cikan sonuc ahlakin evrenselliginin bulunmadigi, yerel durumlar da bile son derece dinamik ve kesinligi bulunmayan, altin bir formulu olmayan bir olgu olusudur. tipki anayasa gibi, kanunlar gibi, ahlak da "oldugu kadar" basarili olmayi umut eder

Read rest of entry

Inanc Vs Mantik

din inanc ve mantigin (sert kaaya carptik) apayri dunyalarin kavramlari olduklarini, asil mantiksizligin bunlari ayni cumlede kullanilmasi oldugunu iddia edenler! sizi agir referanslara bogmadan 5 dakkada besiktas yapmak gorevimdir
dikkaaat:
din nedir? birbiriyle uyumlu bir dizi inanctir (ve bunlarin dogrultusundaki uygulamalar, ritueller).

inanc nedir? bir onerinin/iddianin gecerliligi hakkindaki yargi. "kanseri yenecegime inaniyorum", "yarin gunesin dogudan dogacagina inaniyorum" gibi.

bilgi nedir? "justified true belief". anzakcasi "saglam gerekcelerle inandigim sonucta dogru cikan inanc". ornegin diyelim kanserden kurtulacagim (inancim dogru cikacak) ama buna inanma nedenim gokyuzunde uc kez tur atan bir kartal gormem ise bu bilgi sayilmaz.

[burada "saglam"in"dogru"nun tanimlari kesin degil ama hangi inancin bilgiye daha cok yakinsadigini gostermekte kullanilabilirler]

dolayisiyla bilgi edinmek amaciyla dis dunyayi gozlemlerken bir cok inanc sahibi oluyoruz ve bilimsel hipotezler olusturuyoruz. mantik da burada devreye girerek gozlemle (veri) inancin (hipotezin) arasindaki iliskinin dogasini belirliyor. binlerce yil once yasayan biri gunesin 20 senedir her gun dogudan dogdugunu gordugu icin yarin veya sonsuza kadar o yonden dogacagina inaniyor. gerekceler bildigin tumevarim ve tumdengelimdir temel mantik terimleri yani. gunes 21. senenin ilk gununde batidan dogdu. sonsuza kadar dogudan dogacak inancimiz da yarin da kesin dogudan dogar inancimiz da sarsilacak. burada da basit bir if-then-else mantigi var.egerki gunes hep dogudan doguyor oyleyse yarin da bunu bekle yoksainancini degistir.

buna belief revisioning deniyor: halihazirda edinilmis inanclarin yeni gozlemler sonucu degistirilmesi ve degisen inanca bagli olan diger inanclarin da tutarliligi korumak icin revizyondan gecirilmesi.. bu prosedurun mantiki formalizasyonu dahi var yapay zeka arastirmalari icin yapilmis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/belief_revision
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-belief-revision/

sonuc: mantikla inanci ayni cumlede kullandik dunya da basimiza yikilmadi.

simdi dine geri donelim. buraya kadarki inanc orneklerinde prosedur bilimsel metoda paraleldi: gozlem yap hipotez uret test et sonuclarina gore hipotezini degistir tekrar test et, sonuca var. fakat inanclar karmasiklastikca test edilebilirliklerini yavas yavas yitiriyorlar, zira her fenomen gunesin dogusu gibi direkt gozlemlenemiyor. hayalgucunun cesitlendirdigi hipotezleri disiplinli bir metodla ayiklamak zorlastikca baska kriterler on plana cikiyor, ana-baba veya devlet otoritesi desteginin saglam gerekce sayilmasi gibi.

kritik nokta su ki, burada dahi mantiktan bagimsiz bir gerceklikten degil, bilimsel metodun disiplininin azalmis oldugu bir sistemden bahsediyoruz: "devlet herseyi bilir, devlet ejderha vardir diyor, oyleyse ejderha vardir". al sana mantik. bunun bozuklugu, devlet herseyi bilir onkabulunun test edilemeyisinden, saglam gerekcelere dayanmis bir hipotez olmamasindan kaynaklaniyor.

keza gittikce gucunu birbirinden alarak bir sistem haline gelen inanclar. bunlar sadece test edilemez onkabullere dayanmakla kalmiyorlar (kuran kutsaldir, allahin sozudur), birinin yikilmasi icin ilintili tum inanclarin yikilmasi lazim gibi gorunuyor, o da cok zor bir durum. (cehennem yoksa cennet de yoktur, kiyamet gunu de, belki seytan da, hatta kuran yalandir, kuran yalansa allah yoktur, butun bunlar olamayacagi icin cehennem vardir.. yine cikarimlar yapiliyor guzel guzel).

isin asli, rasyonel dusunce yarim yamalak islese bile o kadar derin bir ogesi ki insanin, o en temel onkabullerin dahi bir gerekcelendirmesi yapiliyor sikca. "allah vardir, yoksa bu mukkemmel duzen nasil olurdu, yoksa bu hayatin anlami ne, yoksa o kadar insan yanildi, yalan mi soyledi yani vs"

eger inanc mantiktan ve bilimsel metoddan tamamen bagimsiz olsaydi, bu tip gerekcelendirmelere de hic gerek kalmaz, insanlar salt sezgiye dayanarak cok daha cesitli ve fantastik seylere inaniyor olabilirlerdi. ornegin napolyon olduguna gonulden inanan birini ciddiye almamanizin nedeni bir dizi rasyonel cikarim degil mi? (napolyon oldu reenkarnasyon olsa bile bu kadar napolyon ayni anda olamaz olsa bile bunlar resmen deli daha gecen gun baska seye inaniyorlardi al mri scan'leri sunu kanitliyor vs). veyahut scientologynin hikayesi neden cogunluga cok gulunc geliyor? kimse yarin oburgun gokten gelinlikler icinde 8 bacakli domuzlarin yagacagi gibi kulliyen rastgele inanclara sahip degil "mantikla aciklamama gerek yok hissediyorum bunu" diyen yok cunku bu onceki hicbir tecrube tarafindan desteklenmeyen en ufak bir rasyonel aciklamasi olmayan bir gorus. devlet 24 saat tv'den bunun propagandasini yapsa ananiz babaniz sizi bu sekilde egitse dahi buna inanciniz gorece zayif olur.

tabii burada o zaman bilmem ne kabilesi niye soyle komik seylere inanabiliyor derseniz...yagmurun sirrini cozmus olan senin benim acimdan komik geliyor adamin mavi bir yagmur tanrisina inanmasi onun bilgi dagarcigi acisindan rastgele bir inanc degil

hangi onkabulun hangi gerekceyle ne kadar kuvvetli bir inanca temel olacagi kisinin psikolojisine gore (olum korkusu sucluluk duygusu, vs), bilimsel bilgi duzeyine gore, toplumun sosyal dinamiklerine gore (otoriter mi, bireyselci mi) belirlenir ama asla mantiktan nedensellikten tamamen bagimsiz olamaz bir inanc ne temelinde (ortaya cikisinda) ne de hayati boyunca (bir birey ona inanirken) dunyevi algidan ve rasyonellikten arinamaz.

Read rest of entry

Iman ettim :=)

Olurken iman edecekmisim..( ahahah be ahaha) ben!
"ben meshur insanlarin zeki imansiz ve ahlaklisini severim."bunlarin bazilari toplumla ilginc bir denge tutturuyorlar. normlara/tabulara karsilar, dalga geciyorlar, hatta dupeduz hakaret bile edebiliyorlar ama artik durustluklerinden midir, diger alanlardaki basarilarindan midir, seytan tuyu mudur nedir, genis kitlelerce aforoz edilmiyor hatta seviliyorlar. sonra geliyor zorluklar, hastaliklar, olum dosekleri ve kacinilmaz soru: peki simdi olumle yuzlesince imana geldin mi? bu agresif bir bicimde sorulmuyor, "tukurdugunu yalayacak misin ha kafasina sictimin ateisti" gibi bir garez yok ama daha sinsi, daha gicik edici bir uslup var. sevecen ve anlayisli gozuken bir uslup, sabirli bir babayla yanlisinda israr edip omrunu heder etmis bir evladin diyalogu gibi. adam orada yanlisini kabul edecek, o eski ukala canliligi yerini yenilginin ve kirilmis bir gururun yorgunluguna birakacak, bizim sunucu da manifesto gibi acik acik okumasa da "gec oldu, guc oldu ama nihayetinde lideriniz dogru yola geldi" imasini yapacak adamin gol diyor diyerek topluma ders verecek. tiyatro resmen. "ne kadar zeki olursaniz olun, ne kadar dalga gecerseniz gecin her canli olumu tadacaktir tatmadan hemen once de hanyayi konyayi anlayacaktir". cok korkunc, bir hayat boyu anlatmaya calistigin seyin tek kelimesinin anlasilmadigini olurken idrak etmek. insanlar olumden haberdar olmadiklari icin toplumlarinin dinini reddediyor veya tumden ateist oluyor degiller. bu kadar yuzeysel ve avanak biri zaten ateist olsa kim ciddiye alir. normal insanlar bir dini nasil reddederler? mesela tutarliligini sorgularlar (zaman-mekanla sinirlandirilmis suclar yuzunden bizi sonsuza kadar cezalandiracak hristiyan tanrisinin herbirimizi teker teker sevdigini soylemek gibi). baska? o dinin cikisini tarihsel dinamikler isiginda incelerler (musa'nin tam da cevre imparatorluklarin guclerinin zayifladiginda ortaya cikmasi gibi secilmis halka vaadedilmis topraklarin kimsenin istemedigi igrenc bir yer olmasi gibi). yahut freudun moses and monotheizmini okur god delusiondaki argumanlari severler oksarlar, vs.bu nedenlerin gecerliligi, insanlarin o anki duygu hezeyanlarina bagli degil. nasil ki sen mantarlari yutup fantastik boyutlara gecince dunya panteist olmuyor, kayalar konusmaya baslamiyor, ayni sekilde olum korkusu gibi bir travma yasayinca da ateist olma nedenleri otomatikman zayiflamiyor, curutulmuyor.

aksi halde bu taktikle her konuda her dogruya basitce ulasabilirdik:
-komsunuzu oldurmek dogru mudur?
-hayir, thou shalt not kill yahu.
[komsunun gurultusu yuzunden butun bir gece uyuyamayip sinirler altust olduktan sonra]
-peki simdi?
-yanlislardaymisim sikmak lazim agzina yuzune
-ya yaaa

Hatta psikolojiyle travmayla, kimyasallarla hic ugrasmayalim direkt lobotomi yapalim: "iste sayin seyirciler, hayati boyunca 2 kere 2'nin 4 oldugunu soyleyip bizle dalga gecti ama lobotomi sonrasi hanyayi konyayi anladi". kimse olup sonsuza kadar yokolmayi istemez ama bilinc belli ki noronlarin fiziksel durumuna bagli. lobotomi sonrasi insanlar karakterlerini, bilinclerini koruyamiyorlarsa beyin tamamen yokolduktan sonra korumalari icin, cennetten akrabalarina dogru gulumseyip diger olulerle kahve muhabbettine devam edebilmeleri icin pek bir neden goremiyorum. yarin oburgun doktorun gelip "kalp krizi kanseri olmussunuz, 10 dakika omrunuz kaldi" demesi, benim de alelacele bir taksi cevirip "su mekke'ye giden jeti takip et" demem bu gercegi degistirmeyecek. hatta bu degnegin diger ucunda da bok var, pek kimse gormuyor: kendi olumu yuzunden imana gelenler kadar insan da sevdiklerinin olumu yuzunden veya dunyadaki adaletsizlikler, korkunc seyler yuzunden imandan gidiyor, fellik fellik kaciyor. ilk grup hakli da bunlar niye haksiz? neden hicbir tv sunucusu yakini olen meshur bir dindara gibi bu muhabetti yaptiktan sonra, isyan halindeki adamdan kameraya donup manidar mimiklerde bulunmuyor, halki ateizme tesvik etmiyor?Birakin kardesim bu uzatma dakikalarinda gelen sahte zaferleri

Read rest of entry

Gerizekalilar icin Kemalizm Expansion Pack

Kemalist proje bir modernlesme modeli alir. yalnizca hukuki duzenlemelerle degil bizatihi yasam modellemesi ile de ortaya koyar. Yalan mi? Yalansa bu cumhuriyet ne, bu sapka devrimi niye yapildi neden medeni kanun ticaret kanunu, borclar kanunu ceza kanunu avrupa ulkelerinden iktibas edildi?Sadece buda diyil, temelde topragin uretim araci oldugu ve saray reaya siniflari ayrimina bagli sosyal yapi neden herkesin haklari bakimindan esit oldugu burjuva proleter ayrimina dayali modern topluma dogru donusturuldu ve bunun yolu acildi?

2 bu kemalizm gercekten tepeden dikte edildi. Cunku bu modeli ortaya koyan tepede bulunan ve elinde iktidar araclarina sahip olan son derece kisitli bir gruptu.Cumhuriyet projesi kazim karabekir, fevzi cakmak gibi milli kahramanlara dahi ragmen tek adam ve kisitli siyasi grubunun pratik uygulamalari ve ustun kamu gucleriyle ortaya cikarilmis uygulanmistir. Cumhuriyetn ilani orneginde dahi buyuk millet meclisi'nde "bazi kafalar gider" denecek kadar sert bir tehdit atmosferinde ve irade dayatmasi ile kendini gosteren bu dayatma bir saka falan diyil gercegin ta kendisidir.

Demokratikmiydi? Hayir. Cunku halk bazinda bir istek veya buna yonelik talep yoktu. Bu kemalist tarih derslerinde dahi neden bundan bir "devrim" diye bahsedildigini aciklar. Eger demokratik usullerle yapilmis bir degisiklik, halkin talebi ve genel kabul ile olsaydi bunlara devrim denmezdi.

Kemalizmin icindeki ogelerden milliyetcilik humanizmin islenmesine ters yonde uygulandi.

Evet? mesela gunes dil teorisi gayri muslimlerin maruz kaldigi 34 trakya olaylari, yirmi kura ihtiyatlar olayi varlik vergisi, 6-7 eylul olaylari bu tip fasizan sovenist bir milliyetciligin disa vurumlariydi.Icinde yasadigimiz gerceklik bunun reddini degil bilakis kabulunu gerektiriyor turkiye'de musluman olmayan turk vatandaslari dahi "yabanci asilli turk vatandasi" veya "diger turk vatandasi" olarak adlandirilirken milliyetciligin humanist butun insanlari dinlerine dillerine cinslerine sinif ve zumrelerine bakmaksizin insan olmakla deger sayan bir anlayisa esit oldugunu nasil soyleyecegiz?

Toplumsal bir elit onderligindeki ekonomik ilerleme toplumsal bolunme uretti anadolu kaplanlari ile beyaz turkler arasindaki catisma yalnizca kulturel sinifsal degil ayni zamanda ekonomik ancak suraya dikkat turkiyedeki mevcut sermayenin buyuk cogunlugu genis kamu kaynaklarinin siyasal iktidar tarafindan belirli tip bir insan grubuna aktarilmasi ile olusturulmadi mi? Ornegin varlik vergisi sirasinda kazim karabekir, milli bir burjuvazinin yaratilmasi icin bu kaynaklarin el degistirilmesinin zorunlu oldugunu da soylemektedir. Zorla el koyulan kaynaklar iktidarla uyumlu turk mutesebbislere verilmis ve zenginlesmeleri saglanmistir. Bu toplumsal elit yani hazineden gecinenler ile bu kaynaklara erisemeyenler arasindaki catismada suregelmektedir ve burada devlet surekli bir halde taraf olmus bazi durumlarda da catismaya mudahale etmistir.

Kemalist cagdaslasma projesinin yukaridan bir dikta oldugu basit bir tespit. Bu sade veri bir gercek oldugundan aksi de soylenemiyor ancak algisi kotu oldugu icin bu bir sekilde "iyilestirilmeye" calisiyor halbuki burada kotu ve iyiden bahsedilecek bir durum yok, tarih olgularla ilgilenir ve olgular iyi ve kotuden bagimsizdir. Ancak bu olgunun yol actigi diger olgular ve o olgularin fikri sebepleri elestiriye konu olabilir. Yanisi mevzubahis elestiri konusu devrim yapilmasi veya modernlesme fikrinin kendisi degildir bu fikrin urettigi suren devam eden sistem ve onun yapisal bozukluklaridir. Bu sistemin arkasindaki fikriyatin temel celiskileri bu sistemin boyle islemesine sebep oldugu icin de modernlesmenin havadan karaya karadan havaya havadan havaya veya isi gudumlu yapilmasi bir seyi degistirmez. Kurulan bir sosyal orgut olduguna gore o orgutun idari yapisi surdugu surece elestiriye tabi olacaktir.

Bu neden 23-38 donemindeki marjinal sartlara karsilik gelen marjinal uygulamalarin "zor sartlar" sebebiyle mesrulasmasinin da mumkun olmadigini gosterir. Cunku 2008 senesinde de kemalizm hala baskin ideolojidir devlet sistemi bu ideolojiye gore sekillendirilmistir, temel hak ve hurriyetler bireylere bu ideolojinin izin verdigi nispette taninmaktadir ve birey bu sekilde korunmaktadir. 23-38 arasinda uygulanan politikalarin zorunlulugu Ataturku belki temize cikarmaya yeter ama kemalist akimdan gelen Ismet inonu ve uygulamalarini temize cikarmaz. Gene devlet icerisindeki bipolar iliskinin varligini ve askeri vesayet altindaki demokratik gelisimin yok oldugunu da gostermez. Dolayisiyla kemalizmn dikte edilmesi degil hala daha ediliyor olmasi, bunun bitmis olmasi degil suren devam eden bir sey olmasi elestiriye tabidir cunku bugun anlasilan kemalizm ile ataturkun kemalizmi arasinda fark oldugu kadar 12 eylul kemalizminin verimsiz bicimsiz baskici otoriter bir rejim oldugu gercegi ortadadir.

Iki bunu deyince son derece kel alaka bir arguman olan "modernlesmesi asagidan yukari olan ulke var midir"sorusu salakcadir ayni zamanda da yanlisa yon gosteriyor. Cunku var. Sirasiyla fransiz devrimi daha sonra jakobenlerin egemenligine gecse de asagidan yukariya bir devrimdir ingiltere'deki magna carta bill of rights ile baslayan modernlesme seruveni her batiminda asagidan yukari gelir alman modernlesmesi prusyali junkerler onculugunde degil, humanist aydinlanmaci model bu junkerlere karsi sosyalist partilerin guclenmesi ile olusmustur. Ornekler cogalabilir dolayisiyla uzatmaya gerek yok, kisacasi var!

Dolayisiyla bunun bir dikta oldugu tespiti dogu her bakimdan dogru.Nokta.

Kemalizmin icindeki milliyetci ogeler ulke icerisinde etnik ve dini sebeplerle ayrimciligi pohpohlarken, indoktrine edilmis bir militer akil da urettiler. Bu uretim modeli yalniz "tehdit" varligiyla kalmiyor, iyi tip turk gibi betimlemelerle donemden doneme gore degisen dogru vatandas kamiller de yaratiyordu. Sirasiyla milliyetcilerin (nihal atsiz) muhafazakarlarin, komunistlerin sonra milliyetcilerin ve komunistlerin (1980) en nihayetinde de dincilerin surekli olarak budandigi yasam alanlarinin haksiz uygulamalarla kisitlandigi ve demokrasinin ara verildigi boyle bir rejim icerisinde humanist liberal, demokratik ilkeler surekli askiya alinirken rejim de asker gozetimi altinda bir sozde demokrasiden fazlasi olarak olusturulmadi.Sebebi yalniz balkan harbi ve arkasindan gelen birinci dunya savasinin yarattigi tehdit paranoyasi degil ulke icerisindeki egemen siniflar arasindaki catismaydi da. Boyle olunca, puan gene bana isliyor,cunku Turkiye en azindan ispanya kadar humanist bir rejim kurabilirdi ve bunu yapmadi, tam da kemalizm yuzunden.


Kemalist elitler onculugundeki iktisadi ilerlemeden olusan toplumsal bolunme ise bunun dogal bir sonucuydu ama diger yandan kapitalizme mal edilemez! Turkiye zaten 24 ocak kararlarina kadar kapitalist bir ulke degil yari devletci bir ulke. Kaynaklarin bolusumunde asli unsurun ve dagiticinin devlet oldugu dolayisiyla devletle is yapanin zenginlestigi bir sistem yaratti, burada da devlet uyumlu burjuvazi ortaya cikti. Kapitalizmin yarattigi temel sorun proleterlerle burjuvalar arasinda olusan gelir adaletsizligine dayali ucurum ve sinif catismasi iken Turkiyedeki en salak sosyoloji kitabi bile ulke icerisindeki siniflardaki temel celiskinin klasik batili siniflara uymadigini soyleyecektir.Sebebi de turkiyenin klasik bir kapitalist gelisimle proleter ve burjuva sinifalrini olusturmamasi yasama sekillerine gore siniflarin kendiliginden olusmus olmasidir. Devletci seckinciler ile hurriyetci muhafazakarlar.

Ve nihayetinde muhafazakar hurriyetcileri zamaninda komunistlere karsi koruyan kollayan yetistire imam hatipleri Turkiyenin her tarafinda acan "kemalizm" 80 sonrasinda ulkucu hareketle sol hareketleri bastirirken milli gorusu ayirdi. Bu kayirma sonucunda genis bir alan bulan islamci hareket ulkesini seven dindar anti komunist cocuklar profilinden siyrilip guclenince tekrar tehdit oldugunun hatirlanmasi manidarsa da, bunlari yaratanin kemalistler oldugu gercegini degistirmiyor. Soru net cunku 70lerde komunizm dinsizliktir propagandasi ile Turklugun asli unsurunun sunni musluman olmak oldugunu beyan edenler ve bu insanlari devlet kademelerinde guclendirenler uzaydan mi isinlandi? Kenan evren genelkurmay baskani degil milli nizam partisi sisli ilce baskanimiydi?Milli guvenlik komitesi seyh haci mesut bin velid ve dort arkadasini mi barindiriyordu? Hizbullahi dahi pkk tehdidine karsi kimler destekledi ve kullandi?Eee bu kadar cehalet de bir cesaret.


O donemlerde ozgur adil ve cok partili secim yapildi mi? Hayir. Peki o donemden sonra 1946ya kadar butun bir kemalist projeler tek tek uygulamaya konuldu mu? Evet. Bildigimiz manada kemalizm bu uygulamalar yekunuyle dogmadi mi? Evet. Oyleyse bu modernlesme projesinin yukardan asagi dayatma olmadigini soylemek bizzat siyaset ilminin temel tanimlarina aykiri. Uygulama da demokratik degil ne halk yoneticilerini seciyor ne de halkin cumhuriyet saltanatin kaldirilmasi laiklik vesaire gibi bir talebi var. Ajanda cikartiliyor uygulaniyor.


Askerin iktidar uzerindeki etkisi meclisteki asker milletvekili sayisiyla degil siyasi iktidara mudahale gucuyle olculur. Militarist ulkeleri militarist yapan sey her biri orgeneral milletvekillerinden kurulu bir meclislere sahip olmalari deyidir halkin iradesiyle secilen meclisin dahi bu askeri irade karsisinda hic bir islevi olmamasidir.O halde 60-70-80 suresince yasanilan butun darbelerin varligi karsisinda biri postmodern sayisiz darbe ve muhtira deneyimi gecirmis bir ulkede askerin etkisi yoktur demek, sscbde sosyalizm yoktur demek kadar anlam tasir.

Bunlar kabul ediliyor fakat kivirilmaya calisiliyor. Bende kemalistim ama kemalizm bu diyildir soyledir boyledir deniyor. O zamanda derizki bu sekilde baslayan kemalizm elbette form degistirmistir ancak kemalistlerin degistirdigi forma esit bu durum turkiyedeki rejimin adinin kemalizm oldugu gercegini de degistirmez. Neden? Kemalistlerin yuzde yuz ataturk uyumlu ataturk olsaydi ne yapacak idiyse onun gibi hareket etmemesi ideolojiyi degil kisiyi baglar. Ataturk tipi kemalizm x yapacak iken ismet inonu tipi kemalizm y politikasinda bulunabilir ayni marksist lenin ile marksist pol potun brezhnevin, Krucevin farkli politik tercihlerinin olmasi gibi. Castro Lenin Mao analarindan tek yumurta ikiziymiscesine bir ve butun politikalar uygulamadiklari icin summe hasa komunist sayilmiyor degiller kemalistler de kemalist yapilanmalari, kemalist orgutleri ve ideolojileri cercevesinde uygulamalarda bulunuyorsa bundan da herhalde harry potter degil kemalizm mesul olacak. ?? :=))



Oyle durumlara geliniyor ki din dersini Turkiyeye getiren, ezanin arapcaya cevrilmesine oy veren ismet inonu kemalist bulunmuyor. Eh lan peki ismet inonu kemalist degilse sukru saracoglu recep peker hasan ali yucel degilse, mahmut esat bozkurt da kemalizmden sinifta kaliyorsa kenan evren de muhsin batur da kemalist degilse kim bu kemalistler? Ataturkculugun savunucusu tsk ataturkcu ideoloji cercevesinde konusmuyor da dinci muhafazakar maksatli ayni anda liberal ozgurlukcu demorkat bir anlayislami hareketler yapiyor? Acik gercek su Ataturk'ten baska kimsenin kemalist olmadigi bir fikri duzlemde kemalizmden bahseilemez Isa'dan baska kimse "dogru hristiyan" degilse hristiyanlik diye bir sey yoktur locke haric kimse liberal olamiyorsa liberalizmde yoktur. Bir ideoloji zorunlu olarak onu benimseyen ve ona uygun davranan insanlar kumesi gerektirir tek basina ortada bir kisinin olabilecgei bir fikir bireysel bir yasam biciminden baska bir sey degildir. Bunu anlamamak icinse gercektende cehalette cigir acmak lazim.

Kemalizm Turkiyenin anayasasinda yer alir ve korunur. Devlet kemalizm cercevesinde kurulmus ve bu devlet suruyor. Kemalizmin paradoksuysa diktatoryal ve otoriter olmasinin sagladigi bir sey, cunku kemalizm hem bir batimda butun insanlarin esit hak ve yukumluluklere sahip oldugunu soyler ve kabul eder ancak esit hak ve yukumluluklere sahip insanlarin temel hak ve yukumluluklerine iliskin isteklerini veya mensubu bulunduklari etnik, dini aidiyetleri tanimayi reddeder. Onlari bicimlendirerek "kemalist insan" haline donusturmek isterken de devlet aygitini kullanir devlet ayginin cebri siddeti ve politikasi ile genis halk kesimlerinin istekleri ve talepleri de bir karsitlik yaratirlar. Ikinci tur celiskisi, kemalizmin sinifsal bolunme yaratmasidir. Bir tarafta kaynaklar bolusumunde devletten gecinenler ve kemalist ideoloji uyumlular ile diger tarafta kendi urettikleri ve emegi ile gecinenlere bagli genis halk tabanlari bulunur. 2 taban arasinda yaptiklari is bakimindan degil para kazandiklari yer bakimindan bir fark vardir zira 24 ocak kararlarina kadar turkiye'deki temel isveren temel sermayedar ve temel uretici devletin kendisidir. Devletin tesebbusleri eliyle ekonomi icerisindeki varligi onu kamu kaynaklarinin bolusumunde etkin bir aktor haline getirir ve onunla calisanlarla digerlerini ayirir. Basitce, genis halk tabanlari para kazanmaya basladikca devlet ekonomiden cekilmek zorunda kalacak devlet ekonomiden cekildikce genis halk tabanlari once ekonomik sonra siyasal liberalizasyon isteyecek kemalizm de otoriter varligini surduremeyecektir. Yasadigimiz bu olacak olan da bu ve bu kemalizmin kendi icindeki paradoksu. Siyaset bilimciler ic paradokstan "kendi kendiyle tutarsiz" olmasini degil yarattigi sistemin sistemi yokedecek catisma noktalarini yaratmasi olarak anlayabilecek kadar da siyasi literature hakimdirler eminim bir kere marxa goz atmislardir.


Kemalizm bu haliyle aktif devlet ideolojisi olarak vardir ve surmektedir, bu model milliyetciligi provoke etmekte modelin kendi ideolojik yapisi da zaten humanist bir kavrayisa erisilmesini "tehditler" ve "dusmanlar" algoritmasinda engelliyor. Boyle oldugu icinde cag disi kalmistir kalacaktir kalmaya mahkumdur. Daha iyi ve cagdas bir yorumu yapilip kabul edilinceye kadar da boyle olacaktir.Sozlerden cok hareketlere guvenmemiz realist olacak oyle yapiyor ve olani soyluyoruz.

Ama gozleri kapayinca gormuyorsun, ders kitaplarindan baska bir sey okumayinca da yok uyumlu oluyorsun akil kalmiyor tabi.


Turkiyede kemalizmi elestirmek, kemalizmin basarisi. Vallahi o kemalizmin basarisi mi Turkiye'nin kemalizme ragmen attigi demokratik adimlarin basarisi mi tartisilir ama oyleyse bile herhalde buna bakip mutluluktan delirecek degiliz, cunku eger is "kemalizmin elestirilebildigi rejim kurmak bunun dahi ozgurluk icerisinde yer aldigi bir sistemde yasamak ise" kimse kendini kandirmasin oyle bir ulkede degiliz.

Atilla yayla, daha gecenlerde bir elestiri yapinca memleket infial etti anayasadan ideoloji cikartilsin tartismasi kemalizm yok ediliyor panigiyle karsilasiyor, genelkurmay baskanligi munazara cemiyetine dondu her gun kemalizme yonelmis tehditleri bir bir ifsa ediyor ve kemalizmin korunacagini soyluyor, sene 2008. Ama bir de bunu nazima soralim, kemalizm elestirilebiliyormuymus. Bir kere de gidip Mustafa Suphi'ye soralim, gecmiste ornek bol.

Belki buradan su noktaya gelmeliyiz neden Turkiye'nin ultra kemalistleri ulusalcilari milliyetcileri bu kadar cirkin, bu kadar bayagi, bu kadar cahil oluyor ve o zaman gelecegimiz noktada mill'in bir sozu olur: "her muhafazakar aptal degildir ama, her aptal zorunlu olarak muhafazakardir"

Kemalizm elestirilerine verilen cevaplar sanki bunu ispatlamak icin ozellikle kurgulanmis gibi. Gozumuzun onunde olana bakalim, niko bir fikir ortaya atiyor, bir fikir dogasi itibariyle insanustudur kavramsaldir meta degildir bundan herhangi bir baska insana da bu fikir duhul edebilir ve o insan fikri savunabilir. Yani fikirler tartismasinda fikrin sahibi degil, fikrin ne oldugu onemlidir. Bireye yonelik saldirilar fikri curutmez. mumkun degil. Basit ornek, dunya kendi etrafinda 24 saatte donuyor savlamasini "hayir cunku sen ibnesin" diye curutemeyiz. Bir fikir uretmek lazim ve anlasilan bu zor. Cunku cevap olarak nihayetinde vardigimiz nokta su: "esir iken mumkun mudur ibaret, yatip kalkip Ataturke dua et senin gibi durzulerin yuzunden, dininden de soguyacak bu millet"

Be hey durzu siiriyle fikri curutmeye calismak siyaset bilimlerinde yeni bir cigir. Hayatimda gordugum en orjinal sacmaliklardan biri. Bir fikre, babani da bilemezdin serefsiz diye curutme yapmaya calismak caresizligin son kertesi, cunku "beni" susturabilse dahi fikri yok edemiyor. Simdi soyleyelim altini cizelim caresizler ve derin bir caresizlik var.

Kemalizm elestirilebilir ve bu yapilacak ve bunu yapiyoruz. Cunku kemalizm tanrisal degildir. Kemalizm de ataturk de elestirilebilir. Ataturk ise kemalizm degildir.Kemalizm bir fikirdir.

Ataturk ise bir insan bir meta bir fani bir olumlu gercek biri. Bu yuzden kemalist olunabilir ancak ataturk olunamaz. Nasil bu boyledir, kemalizmin elestirisi ancak bir fikir elestirisidir Ataturkun hayatinda yaptiklarini kisi olarak nasil biri oldugunu, kahramanligini baglamaz. Ataturk buyuk bir komutan, vatanperver olarak onemli isler basarmis bir radikal olabilir ancak bu sebeple onun her fikri dogru degildir.

Kemalizm elestirisi Ataturkun ozel sahsiyetini ataturkun ozel sahsiyetindeki basarilari da kemalizmin dogrulugunu baglamaz. Bunlar birbirinden busbutun ayri seylerdir sakarya savasini dumlupinari ve bu turden diger tum basarilarini ayri bir yere koyariz ve fikri fikirler arenasinda nedenleri ile ayri ele aliriz. Cunku ataturk sakarya savasini kazandigi icin cumhuriyetcilik dogru degildir cumhuriyetcilik milletlerin kendi kendini yonetmesi hakki varsa dogru olacaktir. Ataturk de cumhuriyeti getirirken "ben bu ulkeyi kurtardim ondan dogrudur" tanrisalligini buna gerekce gostermedi, akil ile uretilmis argumanlar sundu. diyordu ki, nihayetinde butun cografyalardaki tum ulkelerde egemen olanlar bu egemenliklerini milletin zimni veya acik kabulunden alirlar. Zira eger aksi olaydi milletin ustun gucune ragmen bir egemenligin bir grup, zumre tarafindan surekli olarak kullanilmasi mumkun olmazdi. Ancak milletler su veya bu sebeple tiranlar tarafindan yonetilmislerdir. Osmanogullari ailesi de egemenligini allah'tan aldigi inanci ile memleket uzerinde bir tiranlik kurmustur, halbuki esas egemenlik esas guc yalniz ve ancak milletten gelir. Bu halde milletin kendi kendini yonetmesi bir zorunluluktur aksi her tur yonetim bicimi yalnizca bir grubun zorla zorbalikla millet uzerinde egemenlik kurmasi manasina gelir.

Bu dogru. Bu dogru oldugu icin cumhuriyet dogru. Bugun kemalistlerin geldigi noktada demokrasiyi "dusman rejim" olarak karsilarina konumlandirmalari kendi zeka seviyelerindeki dusukluk kadar, kemalizm elestirisinin temelini de olusturuyor. Bu boyle oluyor ve kemalizm demokrat olarak adlandirilmiyor cunku kemalist ideoloji blok olarak anti demokratik ogelere sahip ve gercek dunyada demokrasinin kurum ve kurallariyla islemesine, surdurulebilir bir sekilde kurulmasina imkan vermiyor. Kemalizm demokrat tezlere sahip bir ideoloji olarak demokrasiyi kuramiyor ve bu durum da kemalizmin temelde otoriter burokratik bir sistem kurulmasina musaade etmesine uygulamalarinin hep buna dayanmasina dayaniyor.

Simdi buraya bakip da "islamdaki bozukluklari muhammed'e mal edemeyiz" demek karsilastirilabilir bir nokta degil. Islam bir din. Bir din oldugu icin de bir inanc meselesi. Islam objektif bir veri akilla ispatlanabilir bir iddia ortaya atmaz, islam der ki bu allahin son dinidir. Allaha ve muhammedin onun peygamberi olduguna inaniyorsaniz kuran da allahsaldir ve bu allahsalligi icerisinde mutlak olarak dogrudur. Bu iddia ispatlanabilir bir iddia olmadigindan akil disindadir akil disinda oldugundan da inanc konusudur. Buna inanan insan icin kuran daki her sey dogrudur ve butun insanlar da ancak iyi musluman kotu musluman olmakla aralarinda ayrilirlar.Sizin "islamdaki bozukluk" dediginiz sey bir baska musluman icin "gercek islam" olabilir ikisi arasinda da objektif bir tartisma yaparak hangisinin dogru oldugunu bulamazsiniz. Zira konu bir inanc konusu. Ama islamin sosyal orgutlenmeyi ve sosyal yapiyi belirleyen kurallarini elestirebiliriz belki allahin varligi ve muhammed'in onun kulu ve elcisi oldugu ispatlanamaz ancak one surulen bir islami sosyal orgutlenmenin hak ve ozgurlukleri koruyup korumayacagi olculebilir degerlendirilebilir objektif olcutlerle denetlenebilir. Boyle olunca islami dahi aklin kertesine alabiliriz islam kurallarini ve islami sistemi yerden yere vurabiliriz ve bunu zaten yapiyorum, yapiliyor peki kemalizm neden elestirilemiyor?

Kemalizm ataturk tarafindan ortaya atilmis bir politikalar yekunu olan bir dusunce sistemi olarak akil ile elestiriye dogal olarak tabidir. Bir inanc meselesi degil bir bilgi meselesidir. Kemalizm gerceklikle sinanir tanrisal degildir inanmak degil ogrenmek biat etmek degil katilmak iman degil bilgi gerektirir. Bu haliyle bir din ile bir dusunce sisteminin karsilastirilmasi imkansizdir."islamdaki bozukluklar"dan islam inanci icerisinde "gunahkar muslumanlar" mesul olacak ve hesabini divani kubrada verecek iken kemalizmdeki bozukluklardan bizatihi kemalizm sorumlu olacaktir.Kemalizm arkasina allahi almaz allahsal oldugu iddiasini barindirmaz bir bozukluk varsa fikirdeki yanlisliktandir. Ataturkun bundan mesul olmasi ise carpitmalarin en buyugu ki cok yapiliyor bu. Ataturk yurutme donemi icinde mesul olduklarindan mesul ve kemalizm ataturk degil. Onu ataturkle ozdeslestirmek ancak ve yalniz yanlis fikirleri kotu bilgiler ve aptalca argumanlarla savunmaya calisanlara bir kalkan saglar baska bir sey degil. O halde anti demokratik temel hak ve hurriyetleri korumayan ic celiskilere sahip kemalizm demokrasi fikriyatindan cikmasina ragmen geride kaldigindan curumustur ve fikir olarak miadini doldurmustur.

Diger bir nokta, kemalizm elestirilerine Osmanlinin ornek gosterilmesi, buda cok yapiliyor. Kemalizmin cumhuriyeti getirmesi kemalizm adina bir arti puandir. Osmanlilarin daha kotu eski cag disi bir sistem olmasi kemalizmin bugun yetersiz oldugu gercegini de degistirmez anti demokratik yonlerine de mesruiyet saglamaz.Carlik rejimi de sscbden daha iyi degildir. Sovyetler kesinlikle egemenligi carliga gore daha genis bir gruba vermis, cok daha buyuk bir sinif Sovyetlerde carlik rejimine gore ozgurluklerden istifade etmis rus nufusunun refahi da carliga gore artmistir. Ancak Sovyetler yine de elestirilebilir cunku anti demokratiktir cunku devlet aygitini bir teror araci olarak kendi halki uzerinde sistematik bir sekilde kullanmistir cunku birey temel hak ve hurriyetlerini korumamistir nihayetinde bir burokratik oligarsiden fazlasini yaratamamistir. Bu haliyle elestiriye nasil konu oluyorsa elbette kemalizm de konu olacaktir. Kaldiki sevgili gerizekalilar kemalizm elestirisini yapanlar da "kemalizmden vazgecip padisahi geri getirelim osmanli devletini kuralim" demiyorlar

Elbette bu sistem dunyada mukemmel olarak yok. Her ulkenin kendine has sorunlari problemleri bir cok ve asilmaz adaletsizlikleri var. Ancak bazi ulkeler digerlerinden bu standartlarda daha iyiler.
Ancak bu yetmez. Dunyada bir mukemmellik yok diye daha demokratik daha ozgur daha esitlikci bir sekilde yasama istegi bitmeyecek bu yuzden de elestiri bitmeyecek. Kimse 2008 senesinde insani gelismislik indeksinde 91. sirada olan bir ulkede yasamaktan hosnut kalmamizi ve buna sukretmemizi bizden beklemesin. Buna yol acan fikirler ve olusumlar her neyse onlarda yok edilecektir.

Read rest of entry