PRINCIPLES OF ATATURKISM - THE IDEAS FOUNDATIONS OF THEIR REVOLUTIONS 

An overview of the meanings of “Reform”, “Revolution”, “Revolution” and “Revolution”.

The Turkish revolution is as much a "revolution" as it is a "reform" movement. Revolution has been translated into Turkish as revolution, uprising. In fact, it means the sudden change of an existing situation or a way of life or a social order, and expresses the opposite of evolution. There are many varieties; For example, technical revolution is the sudden emergence of a new tool or method. Political revolution is a bottom-up compulsion. Its purpose is to bring a new order and take measures to protect it. For this purpose, it is necessary to reject the existing order, to gain the fighting forces and to change the ones in power. The first condition of revolutionary changes is to strengthen the existing resistance forces with attractive passwords and to appeal to the interests of the aggrieved classes. For this reason, ideologies play an important role in revolutions, even if they sometimes lead to social utopias. These provide impetus to the revolutionary movement. Often after initial successes there is a power struggle between the leaders of the revolution and between the radicals and the moderates. Since revolutions rely on force, they often resort to terror methods.

In terms of historical types, the revolutions are divided into several parts:

1- Continuous revolutions: They are continuous movements against monarchies or a privileged class.

2 - Bourgeoisie revolution: It is the movement of the bourgeoisie, which has risen thanks to wealth and education, against feudalism, clericalism and monarchy.

3 - Proletarian revolution: It tries to ensure the dictatorship of the working class.

4 - Revolution against imperialism on the way to national independence (new age revolutions are of this type).

5 - Rationalism and secularism revolution against bigotry and irrational views

Ataturk's revolution falls into the 4th and 5th groups.

Sometimes a counter-revolution is observed to revert to a revolution. In our age, there have been national-fascist or national-socialist revolutions against the liberal-democratic state. These are called right wing revolutions. As a result, a party can dominate power alone.

Marxist doctrine aims at a world revolution that will comprehend the workers of the whole world. It envisages eliminating the capitalist-bourgeois class and establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat.

While the right of nations to resist oppression is accepted, whether there is a right to a revolution is a matter of debate in terms of state theories.

Revolutions against an unjust system that cannot be eliminated through legal means are considered legitimate revolutions. The new constitutions envisage measures to prevent the violation of democratic rights. For this purpose, parties that violate the constitution are not allowed.

The most important revolutions in history are: 1642 and 1688 British Puritan Revolutions, 1775 to 1782 American Revolution of Independence, 1789 Great French Revolution, 1830 Belgian Revolution, 1911 Chinese Revolution, 1917 Russian Revolution, 1918 German Revolution, 1919 Turkish Revolution, 1922 Italian Fascist Revolution, 1933 German National Socialist Revolution, 1936 Spanish Revolution.

Why Were Atatürk's Revolutions Mandatory?

Until the end of the sixteenth century, the Ottoman Empire dominated three continents of the world and became the most powerful and magnificent state, thanks to the national dynamism fueled by the power of faith, a superior war technique, advanced prosperity and organizational genius. The legal transfer constitutes the pinnacle of this splendor. The letter of Suleiman the Magnificent to the French King Fransouva is the proof of this.'

Unfortunately, despite this outward majesty, the seeds of our backwardness were planted in this period. Because the world is entering a new economic order. A new mentality was being born. In other words, a new world was born with science and philosophy. The Ottoman Empire could not keep up with this innovation. She couldn't even believe him. This is the deep reason why we fell behind and then were compelled to make revolutions. While Suleiman the Magnificent's military and organizational genius was leading our armies from victory to victory, things were not going well in the country. Once conquered, a cultural unity could not be established, the state was gradually turning into a patchwork, administration and justice could not be provided in our new lands, and above all, the country could not progress economically, on the contrary, it was deteriorating and getting poorer. Because we were unaware of the developments in the world.

Three major technical innovations were beginning to dominate Europe: The development of the compass opens up the possibility of sailing to the oceans. The use of gunpowder, whose explosive force reached a great extent, in cannons in the form of cannons, destroys the castles of the feudal lords and closes the era of feudalism. And national unions are emerging around the strengthening central administrations. Finally, with the invention of the printing press, information was spreading to large masses. All this was expanding the world. The Portuguese had actually opened up and divided the eastern hemisphere, and the Spanish the western hemisphere. Perhaps the crusades had a great influence on these discoveries. And the Europeans had the opportunity to learn many things they did not know from the easterners. However, Europe added new ones to this knowledge and found the opportunity to dominate the world by applying them widely.

The principle of humanist movements is to leave the medieval scholastic and dogmatic world view and move to an idea and aesthetic view that believes in the superiority of reason.2

The origin of the rationalism (rationalism) and the Renaissance (rebirth) movement is very old. This movement, whose first signs and works were seen in Sumerians and ancient Chinese, jumped to Rome over Egypt, Crete and Greek stages. In the Middle Ages, Europe was on a darker intellectual and spiritual level than Asia; Greek philosophy and science were forgotten in Europe. In its place, scholasticism, which imprisoned human intelligence, prevailed. Muslims served the civilization by translating and expanding the works of Greek civilization into Arabic. These works of Islam were brought back to Europe in the tenth and twelfth centuries via Italy and Spain. However, since this date, the east and the Islamic world have been covered in the darkness of scholasticism. In Europe, two humanist world movements such as the Renaissance, which means the rediscovery of Greek civilization, and the Reformation, began. The fact that we did not participate in this tremendous intellectual move has been the main reason for our mental retardation, and it has become a definite necessity to carry out the mental and mental revolution, which is the most powerful revolution in our country, three centuries after its time. The Renaissance movement, which is a spiritual rebirth of Europe and therefore of all humanity, a return to Greco-Latin civilization, which substitutes rationality instead of scholasticism, observation and experimentation instead of transport, secularism and tolerance instead of theocracy, has spread at an unprecedented speed. This is called the Renaissance. It has been the main reason for our mental retardation and it has become a definite necessity for the mind and mentality revolution, which is the most powerful of the revolutions in our country, to be carried out three centuries after its time. The Renaissance movement, which is a spiritual rebirth of Europe and therefore of all humanity, a return to Greco-Latin civilization, which substitutes rationality instead of scholasticism, observation and experimentation instead of transport, secularism and tolerance instead of theocracy, has spread at an unprecedented speed. This is called the Renaissance. It has been the main reason for our mental retardation and it has become a definite necessity for the mind and mentality revolution, which is the most powerful of the revolutions in our country, to be carried out three centuries after its time. The Renaissance movement, which is a spiritual rebirth of Europe and therefore of all humanity, a return to Greco-Latin civilization, which substitutes rationality instead of scholasticism, observation and experimentation instead of transport, secularism and tolerance instead of theocracy, has spread at an unprecedented speed. This is called the Renaissance.

In Italy, this movement began in the fourteenth century with the reintroduction of the ideas of ancient Greek and Roman civilization and the extraction of old works of art from the underground. The Renaissance movement, pioneered by geniuses such as Dante, Petrarca and Bokaçyo in literature, raised art geniuses such as Leonardo da Vinci and Rafael and Michelangelo in the fifteenth century. This movement, which opened new horizons to hearts and minds, soon opened the way for an unprecedented movement and development in positive sciences. With the help of these geniuses, humanity has realized the victory of reason over mysticism.

While the Renaissance movement was almost entirely unique to Italy in the 14th and 15th centuries, it spread to France, Germany, England and other European countries from the 16th century. Under this influence, a humanist literature was born and besides Latin, the European national languages ​​gradually began to be the language of literature. Kollej de Frans was founded in 1530, Villon from France, Shakespeare from England and Servantes from Spain were brought up. In the positive sciences, Kepler, Copernic, Galileo laid the foundations of mathematics, astronomy and physics, and Newton, who followed them, created the science of mechanics. In the light of these sciences, human intelligence has begun to conquer the world and the universe step by step.

A second work of humanism is the reformation. In Italy, Savanarola first cried out that the church was illegitimate, but that voice was drowned out on the gallows. The church not only deteriorated, but immediately seized all the wealth of Europe and became the richest institution. Although the kings seized some of the church property with this wealth, the church was still the richest institution. There was an open or secret rivalry between princes and kings. When one side held the church, the other side was hostile to the church. In this way, the intellectual, political and moral elements of the religious reform came together. Finally, Luther 1483 in Germany, Kalven (Calvin) 1509 in France and Switzerland, and Zwingli 1510 in Switzerland led the reform movements. Rather, Luther was acting from the point of view of the purity of the faith, particularly against the payment of sins. And for the first time he attacks the idea that the papal office is infallible. Some of the German princes rescued Luther from the clutches of the church. So much so that a Lutheranism separated from the Catholicism came into being. Some churches merged with Luther. After long struggles, in 1555 the German Emperor was compelled to recognize the new Lutheran church. This movement gradually gained strength by spreading to France, England and Switzerland. Finally, the Protestant church and the Protestantism were able to hold on against the Catholic Church. After long struggles, in 1555 the German Emperor was compelled to recognize the new Lutheran church. This movement gradually gained strength by spreading to France, England and Switzerland. Finally, the Protestant church and the Protestantism were able to hold on against the Catholic Church. After long struggles, in 1555 the German Emperor was compelled to recognize the new Lutheran church. This movement gradually gained strength by spreading to France, England and Switzerland. Finally, the Protestant church and the Protestantism were able to hold on against the Catholic Church.

The reason why we adopted Protestantism as a humanist movement is not just because it brought about a renewal in the religious field. Protestantism broke the narrow circle of the church in every subject, including religious issues, and accepted that the method of criticism could be applied to every field. A second consequence of this movement was that it forced the Catholic Church to change more or less. So much so that a Catholic reform, although not at this level, occurred in the face of the Protestant reform.

While two humanist movements, such as the Renaissance and the Reformation, were taking place in Europe that brought light to the human mind, the Ottoman Empire was involved in a dire reactionary movement that remained distant and alien to these human movements. XV. In the 16th century, with the patronage of Fatih, the tendency to deal with the religion of Islam with a tolerant understanding occurred. Since the 16th century, religious bigotry had surrounded the whole country and the administration. Today, we know for sure that in the presence of Fatih, religious issues could be discussed openly and freely, and sometimes even Islamic and Christian scholars were able to participate in these discussions together. Thanks to this tolerant understanding of Fatih, some Byzantine scholars went into Turkish service, and some of them had the opportunity to leave the country safely and go to Europe. Fatih communicated with Leonardo da Vinci and even invited him to Istanbul. The great Venetian painter Bellini came to Istanbul and loved Turkishness so much that when he returned to Venice, he took many things from Turkish art and taste, which is why he was nicknamed “Ilturco”3. Unfortunately, this broad-minded toleration XVI. Since the middle of the century, it has left its place to a deep bigotry. So much so that Islam and the Islamic world closed in on itself and stayed away from the world's currents. While physics, chemistry, astronomy and mechanical sciences were established and developed based on observation and experience in Europe, the Islamic world completely cut off its relations with the positive sciences and stuck to a scholastic and dogmatic understanding. This was a stagnation, or rather regression, in science. The verse in the Qur'an, which states, "Dry age and everything are in the holy book," was subjected to a disastrous interpretation, and even positive sciences began to be sought in the Qur'an. However, the Qur'an is a physics, It's not a chemistry book. This is a moral and law book. Divine decrees cannot accept change. How can physics and chemistry take place in the Qur'an, these sciences are in a state of constant change and development. Sometimes an invention is discovered to be wrong before ten years have passed. How could such a constantly changing subject have a place in a religious book that could not change even a letter?

Schools in Europe were actually parish schools. And they only taught theology. This was also the case in our madrasa. For this reason, there was a similarity between the theology colleges of Europe and our madrasahs, not only in terms of teaching method and staff, but also in terms of architecture. The only difference is that as soon as the positive sciences were born, the theology colleges of Europe allocated a pavilion to these new sciences and included them in their programs, but the madrasa insisted on not accepting this innovation. This has been a factor that delayed our level of knowledge for two centuries. This is the reason that made it necessary for the madrasahs to be closed completely instead of reforming them. The teaching union revolution was born from this. What problem was the real struggle for?

Mustafa Fazıl Pasha wrote the following in the letter he wrote to Sultan Aziz:4 “The thing that determines the law of nations is not religion and sect. If religion does not stop at the rank of eternal life, that is, if it even intervenes in the worldly world, it will culminate the sentence and even perish.”

On the other hand, Ziya Pasha, one of the leaders of the idea of ​​freedom, wrote in the number 41 of Hürriyet Newspaper published in London:5 “Until the Tanzi-Mat, the only law was Sharia-i Islam. While it is possible to benefit (receive) from the shari'ah, which is an ocean of bipayan (an endless sea) for the accident of new needs, this remedy can be attributed to the idea of ​​vaz'i kavanin (writing the law) from menabi (sources) without being ostentatious (examined). There can be no great mistake in deviating (to the perverse idea). It will not be possible for a long time to get rid of the sin of Mustafa Reşit Pasha's being stuck in the field (that is, putting new laws) in this regulation together with his good (accepted) good intentions”. The great poet of freedom, Namık Kemal, wrote the following article, which shows that despite his heroic actions in the struggle for freedom, he was somewhat behind the Tanzimat:6 “Two laws do not work in a state, They made the world known and manifested itself with obsessive delusions (inconsolable nonsense) that it would not be possible to reform the administration unless the shariah was abolished completely. They do not know that the principles of justice are mutually exclusive in transmission and intellect.

Since they were in the Kavaid-i tabiya, evmir-i divine and prophetic hadith, they deduced rules and laws from them - that is, from the Qur'an and hadiths - without having to draw philosophical conclusions. Even if an authoritative fatwa book is taken into account, not only its procedural law, its content of the law, its content and the way of making laws are agreed with each other in the same way."

It can be seen that although Ziya Pasha and Namık Kemal are included, many reform and post-tanzimat men say: The laws that are necessary for the nation must be taken from the Sharia. Because the provisions of the sharia and the modern European law-making procedures are the same, whatever the social realities, the shari'a provisions are sufficient. How interesting is that, while the first law was being negotiated in the first Turkish Grand National Assembly, a deputy said: "What, are you going to make a law, we have a divine law". However, even in the Tanzimat edict, although the sharia is venerable, it was determined that "some new laws should be established"1 (1839). Long before that, de Montesquieu (1689-1755) and Rousseau (1712-1778), while defending freedom, suggested that the necessities of the people and the time should be prioritized in the making of the laws that would guarantee this freedom. They defend the thesis that such dogmatic-religious principles cannot meet the ever-changing social necessities, which has been the basis of the European intellectual revolution since the 18th century. The Tanzimat is only a belated echo of this intellectual revolution in Turkey. And yet, by subjecting the verse in the Qur'an, "There is nothing dry or wet that should not be found in this holy book," to a grave interpretation, of course, all worldly laws, economic rules, and even all positive sciences are included in the Qur'an. In other words, they have fallen into such a disastrous error as to claim that there is no need to make laws or create science. It is a pity that there are still those who hold this idea today, that is, those who hold back from the Europe of the 18th century and even from the Tanzimat mentality. This idea has been the basis of the European intellectual revolution since the 18th century. The Tanzimat is only a belated echo of this intellectual revolution in Turkey. And yet, by subjecting the verse in the Qur'an, "There is nothing dry or wet that should not be found in this holy book," to a grave interpretation, of course, all worldly laws, economic rules, and even all positive sciences are included in the Qur'an. In other words, they have fallen into such a disastrous error as to claim that there is no need to make laws or create science. It is a pity that there are still those who hold this idea today, that is, those who hold back from the Europe of the 18th century and even from the Tanzimat mentality. This idea has been the basis of the European intellectual revolution since the 18th century. The Tanzimat is only a belated echo of this intellectual revolution in Turkey. And yet, by subjecting the verse in the Qur'an, "There is nothing dry or wet that should not be found in this holy book," to a grave interpretation, of course, all worldly laws, economic rules, and even all positive sciences are included in the Qur'an. In other words, they have fallen into such a disastrous error as to claim that there is no need to make laws or create science. It is a pity that there are still those who hold this idea today, that is, those who hold back from the Europe of the 18th century and even from the Tanzimat mentality. By subjecting the verse that means "There is nothing old, it should not be found in this holy book" to a grave interpretation, from the verse that belongs to faith and morality, all worldly laws, economic rules, even all positive sciences are in the Qur'an, that is, it is necessary to make laws and create science. They have fallen into such a terrible error as to claim that they are not. It is a pity that there are still those who hold this idea today, that is, those who hold back from the Europe of the 18th century and even from the Tanzimat mentality. By subjecting the verse that means "There is nothing old, it should not be found in this holy book" to a grave interpretation, from the verse that belongs to faith and morality, all worldly laws, economic rules, even all positive sciences are in the Qur'an, that is, it is necessary to make laws and create science. They have fallen into such a terrible error as to claim that they are not. It is a pity that there are still those who hold this idea today, that is, those who hold back from the Europe of the 18th century and even from the Tanzimat mentality.

This is the axis of the Turkish revolution: moving from a dogmatic and scholastic sharia state to a secular state.

Among those who defended the dogmatic-theocratic state and world view in the past centuries and today, there are also malicious people who exploit those heedless people.

Religion, especially the supreme religion of Islam, is a guide to faith and morality. Although religion has set some rules for practical life, it has accepted the rule that these will change over time, that is, social necessity.

For a commentary and ijtihad he wrote, the great Imam-i Azam said to those who said that there was a different ijtihad in Mecca: "Hum rical'n and nahnu rical" (They are men, but we are also men).

Trying to find positive sciences, physics and chemistry in the Qur'an is not understanding this religion at all. Because positive sciences are in constant change and renewal. Can things that will always change be found in a religious book that will not change forever? Thirty years ago, the science of physics regarded the atom as the last building block of matter that could no longer be broken down. In this respect, it is said that the atom is indivisible. Now the atom is no longer an atom. Because it has been disintegrated. Can the Qur'an contain such information that will change with the development of the human mind? If he did, would there be room for the hadith "Go and seek knowledge, even in China"?

There is no doubt that the Turkish revolution showed the greatest respect to the institution of religion, by accepting religion as a principle of conscience and morality, separating it from worldly affairs, and linking the ever-changing realities of practical life to positive sciences.

For all these reasons, secularism has been the axis of the Turkish revolution. In this way, Turkey has adopted the rational philosophy, which is the only creator of the Renaissance, the reformation and the positive sciences. Was there any other way to quickly make up for the lost centuries? Was there any other way for the Turkish nation to develop its material, intellectual and spiritual power with a free mind and to become an independent organ with creative and equal rights and duties, without being an imitator of civilized nations?

Ataturk's revolution walked this only way. And he continues to walk. The national genius, whose most complex meanings appear in the simplest formulas, appeared on the following stage in one of the first periods of the Grand National Assembly:

A hodja master asks: The caliphate is abolished, the sharia is going, the shrines are closing, what will I be now?

Atatürk (from his seat): You will be a man, my teacher.

Characteristics and Principles of Atatürk's Revolutions

The basic principle of the Turkish revolution is to establish a national, democratic, rational and secular, in a word, western, world view in the country, and to reorganize all the institutions of the state with this view. The leader of this progressive movement, which was made not only to save the nation, but also to provide it with the opportunity to live eternally and freely, and to develop its intellectual and spiritual abilities to the last level, is Kemal Atatürk.

With a great and disciplined national dynamism, superior organization and sense of justice, our nation has dominated three continents not only by military service but also by moral and cultural strength, and has dominated the language, religion and culture of any tribe for centuries without forcing them.

After stagnating in the 16th and 17th centuries due to internal and external reasons, our empire started to decline rapidly from the 18th century and became a "sick man", an open market of industrial states, who no longer dominates his destiny. The 1914-18 World War had dealt the sick man the final blow. It was necessary to bring the Turkish element to safety from the ruins of the empire and to provide it with a free and honorable life.

Mustafa Kemal foresaw this fate and this task long ago.7 The idea of ​​revolution was not born in him in the terrible despair of 1919. As a junior officer in 1907, he had drawn the future borders of the homeland. This border, which he had the last Ottoman parliament accept as a national treaty (misak-ı milli) in 1919, is almost the same as the homeland border he drew with his sword in 1922.

After the 1922 Victory, he carried out his revolutionary moves one by one until 1938.

The fact is that Atatürk knew how to keep his thoughts in his conscience as, in his own words, “a national secret” until the time comes,8 and he created his work by utilizing the opportunities or creating opportunities.

Although the Turkish revolution is fundamental moves made on the ground and longing created by the Reform movements, which have examples in our history, it differs from them in four respects:

1 - Reform movements before Atatürk were mostly the fruit of the effort of a society that was forced to westernize under the influence of military necessity and external factors, trying to reconcile the east and the west before it could decide to change its direction radically.9

For the first time in our history, Atatürk believed that the realization of this reconciliation was a dream and was based on the principle of making our nation, with all its institutions, a member of the western civilization family.

The conciliators were driven partly out of normal conservatism, but more out of fear that westernization would make us not "ourselves". However, we had to stay “ourselves”, that is, not our national substance, but rather turn to the rational and liberal view of life, which is the common property of all humanity. Rational and liberal thought; Sumer, bypassing Egypt, Crete, Greece, and Rome, passed through two humanist stages, the Renaissance and the Reformation, and settled in Western Europe.11 Among the elements of civilization was the Islamic civilization, to which we also contributed. Thus, westernization was not alienation, but rather a "return to ourselves".

In the face of such simple and easy-to-understand westernization moves, the "ilmiye class" and those who provoked and exploited it, with heedlessness or the ambition of not losing their power, took the front.

To persist in the scholastic view was nothing but the exploitation of religion, and such an understanding of religion was actually a view that developed with real Islam. have shown as a bogeyman. Another factor that increases the gravity of the matter is that our external enemies have done their best to leave our country behind by exploiting and encouraging the negligence of local bigots. So much so that even foreign states had difficulties in the reformation of madrasahs.

Thus, two things were needed to create an environment that would enable Turkishness to survive:

A: Strictly separating religious affairs from state affairs based on the principle of secularism,

B: To be unconditionally independent to the outside.

These are the two main motifs of the Turkish revolution.

These were also essential to achieve. The National Struggle was carried out in the service of these motives. National victory was evaluated for the sake of these motives. There are many victories in the world and in our history. However, none of them has changed the destiny of a nation as much as the Dumlupınar Victory, and no one has been evaluated in such a way as to give such definite results. 2 - The second feature that distinguishes Atatürk from the Ottoman Reformers is his realism. When Mustafa Kemal started his life, those who thought about the fate of the country were following three kinds of thesis.

Theocratic Islamists; defending the idea of ​​a state based only on sharia and whose ruler is the shadow of Allah. Many magazines supporting this idea were published in Istanbul and the provinces.13 In reality, the unification of masses based on religion but deprived of the unity of culture and sentiment was not uncommon. The Islamic masses that wanted to be brought together did not even know each other, let alone love each other. And all Islamic communities other than Turkey were under the captivity of the imperialist states. It was not possible to reach such a conclusion without defeating all those states. Even if this was accomplished, it was impossible to reconcile the communities that were brought together. As a matter of fact, the armies of the Turks, the self-sacrificing devotees of Islam, were joined by the imperialists,

Pan-Turkism movement; Fifty-sixty million people living in different parts of the world, especially in Russia, spoke Turkish and we were racially common. Ziya Gökalp was thinking of establishing a Turan country by both arousing the nationalism movement in Turkey and instilling the ideal of "Great Turkey". He created unity. We were far from other Turkish-speaking masses in terms of geography as well as culture. It would not be possible to realize pan-Turkism without being dragged into world-wide wars, and the last drop of blood of our nation would be wasted for this cause.15

The idea of ​​decentralization, that is, a kind of federative state, which Prince Sabahattin promotes. This too was a utopia. Because the masses we wanted to be federated were tied to us by a thread. Since the French Revolution, the era of national independence had opened. Finally, the Turkish mass was not in a position to be an axis in this federation and was not strong. Decentralization would only accelerate the collapse of the empire and burden the Turkish element.

3 - Although the reform movements aimed to make corrections in limited institutions or to change the insult and some individuals, our revolution brought about a wholesale change in all our institutions and our worldview. For him, a world movement that set an example for all peoples who want to get rid of it, although it is actually a national movement, has become a truly human behavior. The fact that the Indian, Pakistani, Tunisian and Algerian mujahideen carry the picture of Atatürk on their chests is a proof of this.

4 - Although reform was the work of rulers or a small intellectual group, our revolution was accomplished by gathering large masses around a genius leader. The nation was concluded by revolting not only against external enemies, but also against the outdated ones of their own institutions.

Atatürk did not compliment any of his pan-Islamic, federal ideas. He did not find any of them in a real-life character. Realist Mustafa Kemal had found the only way to go: to establish an unconditionally independent national Turkish State.16 He was not content with putting this idea forward theoretically. He also drew the map showing the borders of a national Turkish State in 1907.

According to his idea, an operation would be performed in the Ottoman Empire anyway. We shouldn't have left this operation to our enemies17, we should have done it ourselves. At that time, the hostilities against the "sick man" would move away from us, we would be able to give independence to the countries we knew as an occupation force, despite our historical services and goodness, and we would be able to bring our homeland to the level we wanted, where we would be left without any trouble. The waste of Turkish energy had to be stopped from spilling Turkish blood from distant countries so that it would remain on our map.

For some, the National Struggle reached its goal with the 1922 Victory and ended. For Atatürk, the Dumlupınar Victory was not an end, but a beginning.18 Because it was not enough to save Turkey's independence and promote it abroad. It was necessary to create the conditions that would ensure the continuation of that independence. This is how the first separation between those who joined the National Struggle with their hearts and minds began. Was national victory an end or a beginning? Was it a goal or a means? Many wanted Turkey to return to its own life after the victory. On the day he entered Izmir at the head of his victorious armies, Atatürk openly said: “The real work will begin now.”19

Three ideas were colliding in his post-victory Turkey. One of them can be called moderate conservative anti-authoritarian "evolutionism". He had many supporters in the First Assembly. And it was partly the basis for the founding of the second group and the “Progressive Friars”. According to them, Islahad was necessary. But this Reform should have been evolutionary, not a revolutionary character that could be realized by dictators. The institutions that the nation created in its long history were actually beneficial. But it regressed over time. It was necessary to bring these to an evolution, but to preserve the main institutions.

The second idea represents a darker, even reactionary, conservatism. Dozens of national institutions are healthy. Only religious orders should be duly implemented.20 In fact, there is no need for a law or code other than the provisions of the Qur'an.21

Atatürk was against both of these ideas with the supporters who were limited for that time, and he accepted the necessity of revolutionary reform. According to him, although the victory was won, the dangers surrounding the country were still standing. For a national evolution, it was necessary not to demolish many institutions and emulate the west, but to become completely westernized. For this purpose, it was necessary to sacrifice even the historical main institutions and to leave religion to consciences by completely separating religion and state affairs, and to put the national will completely under the command of positive science.

In the times after the National Struggle, even during the struggle, Atatürk's disagreement with many people and sometimes even personal enmities were due to these differences of opinion.

The Turkish revolution was the result of a necessity. The eternal and free life of the nation required the introduction of a new worldview, that is, a revolution in mentalities.

When we look at it from a broad and philosophical perspective, the Turkish revolution is a natural echo in Turkey of the great intellectual movements that were born and developed in the world (humanism, renaissance, reformation, freedom, independence, social solidarity, human rights), the necessity of making up for lost time in the form of moves in order to rise to the world level. and finally, it can be understood as reaching the final goal of a longing that appeared in the reform movements within the country.

The Turkish revolution is an original, a synthesis, not a copy.

Comparison of Atatürk's ideology with other ideologies

The materialist socialist (communist) worldview, which was born in the 19th century, especially under the intellectual leadership of Marx and Engels, connects human history to a single motif. This motif is that classes have existed in every period and are in a struggle. According to the Marxist socialists of the 19th century, the newly formed bourgeoisie against feudalism is using the same destructive weapons against the proletariat against the bourgeoisie today. According to Marx and Engels, the fateful problem of human societies today is the war between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. According to them, the proletariat will win this war because of the rooting of the proletarian consciousness and the numerical superiority of the proletarian army. And at the end of the work, the class war will be able to end, with all societies taking on an equal and proletarian character. The emergence and strengthening of the bourgeoisie, according to these materialists and socialists, is the result of modern industry, or rather modern positive sciences. Local industries, which started small at first, felt the need to increase production endlessly thanks to the discovery of new markets, so the production units expanded as they expanded and gained an international character by crossing the borders of nations. Now, instead of local and national markets, a world market has emerged.

As a result of this development, the bourgeoisie realized the greatest revolution in history. This development not only abolished all feudal institutions and orders, but also created a deep revolution in the human spirit. According to Karl Marx, there is no longer any connection between people other than the idea of ​​self-interest. Instead of the colonial system, which was covered with religious and political dreams in the past, an open, indecent and direct colonial order was created. Thus, the bourgeoisie turned the jurist, priest, poet, physician, and scholar into its own paid workers.

The bourgeoisie is obliged to keep the means of production in its hands, and therefore the entire social order, in a state of constant change. According to the socialists, the constant changes in production, the uninterrupted disturbances in the social order, and therefore an endless distrust, is the characteristic feature of the bourgeoisie domination that distinguishes it from previous periods. By exploiting the world markets, the bourgeoisie has made the production and condensation markets of all countries cosmopolitan. With the extraordinary development of the means of production and transportation, the bourgeoisie has also included savage tribes in the circle of civilization. With the cheapness of the goods it produces, it has penetrated all corners and sub-districts of the world. And in all these societies the bourgeoisie is trying to deepen its order. The bourgeoisie created cities and ensured their dominance over the villages. By creating a large proletarian army, the bourgeoisie created the weapon that would eventually destroy industry. The proletarians, who are shown as the modern working class in proportion to the increase in capital, are saved from death only as long as they can find a job. And his finding a job is conditional on helping to increase capital. Workers have to sell themselves piecemeal. And they are one of the goods sold in the market. And their fate depends on the competition between the goods placed on the market. The proletarians have lost the character of all independent work as a result of mechanization. For this reason, their enthusiasm for working was lost. And they have almost become a part of the machine they are working on. The worker earns only enough to meet his physiological needs. As the worker's enthusiasm for work disappears, his wages also decrease. This creates a vicious circle that causes the enthusiasm to disappear again. The worker is exploited not only by the manufacturer, but also by other members of the bourgeoisie such as landlords, shopkeepers and moneylenders. Here communism emerged to be the opinion leader of the workers against this exploitation. And it will represent the worldwide unity of local socialist workers' parties. The aim of these works is to organize the proletarians as a class, to end the domination of the bourgeoisie and to seize the political domination. For communists, the capitalist is not a personal type, but a social organ in production. Capital is a common product. And it happens when many partners work together. The greatest weakness of communism is its inability to protect freedoms. 19, whose theses we have thus summarized in the shortest possible way. Volumes have been written to criticize the materialists and socialists of the century. Here we will content ourselves with only pointing out a couple of points, leaving aside the fact that it forces its aspects and manifested education and needs to a very plain simplicity. Karl Marx says: “Communism is not for us a situation to be brought about, but rather an ideal towards which the truths must be directed. The sole purpose of this ideal is to change today's society.”

It is clearly seen that in this sentence, not a scientific fact, but a religious decree is put forward. For a scholar, the facts are examined as they are and without prejudice, and a judgment or an ideal is derived from it. However, according to Marx, ideals are not at the disposal of the facts, but the facts are at the disposal of the ideal. The 19th century socialists claim that the ideal of a classless society will be achieved by the abolition of the bourgeoisie and the domination of the proletariat. The reality, which has been visible for a century, especially in the countries where it has settled after the First World War, is stated as follows: The bourgeoisie has really been abolished, that is, a social class has been eliminated and all members of the nation have been turned into proletarians, but a new class has emerged. Since communism is a revolutionary regime, it must be based on a cadre. This lineup is maybe 19. It developed in a way that the socialists of the century did not foresee and created a new class. In Cilas's terms it is called the "party secretaries class". With the difference that this class has unlimited powers and keeps the society under control in all areas. The first consequence of this is the disappearance of freedom of thought. On the other hand, in some communist countries, the tendency to return to small ownership emerged with economic imperatives. This contradiction in practice is this: Factories are controlled by the delegates elected by the workers working there, on the one hand, and by local party organizations on the other. These two positions are often in conflict. The depression we see today in Yugoslav communism is a result of this conflict. In Cilas's terms it is called the "party secretaries class". With the difference that this class has unlimited powers and keeps the society under control in all areas. The first consequence of this is the disappearance of freedom of thought. On the other hand, in some communist countries, the tendency to return to small ownership emerged with economic imperatives. This contradiction in practice is this: Factories are controlled by the delegates elected by the workers working there, on the one hand, and by local party organizations on the other. These two positions are often in conflict. The depression we see today in Yugoslav communism is a result of this conflict. In Cilas's terms it is called the "party secretaries class". With the difference that this class has unlimited powers and keeps the society under control in all areas. The first consequence of this is the disappearance of freedom of thought. On the other hand, in some communist countries, the tendency to return to small ownership emerged with economic imperatives. This contradiction in practice is this: Factories are controlled by the delegates elected by the workers working there, on the one hand, and by local party organizations on the other. These two positions are often in conflict. The depression we see today in Yugoslav communism is a result of this conflict. The first consequence of this is the disappearance of freedom of thought. On the other hand, in some communist countries, the tendency to return to small ownership emerged with economic imperatives. This contradiction in practice is this: Factories are controlled by the delegates elected by the workers working there, on the one hand, and by local party organizations on the other. These two positions are often in conflict. The depression we see today in Yugoslav communism is a result of this conflict. The first consequence of this is the disappearance of freedom of thought. On the other hand, in some communist countries, the tendency to return to small ownership emerged with economic imperatives. This contradiction in practice is this: Factories are controlled by the delegates elected by the workers working there, on the one hand, and by local party organizations on the other. These two positions are often in conflict. The depression we see today in Yugoslav communism is a result of this conflict.

The starting point of 19th century socialists and communists is based on the birth and expansion of a proletarian class. A proletariat that "has nothing to lose but its chain." It has no rights and is just an exploited entity. When this idea was put forward, that is, in the 19th century, it is understood that it was not thought that the western world, namely capitalism, could also be invaded and that liberal capitalism could turn into social capitalism. It can be said that in the current period towards the end of the 20th century, we are moving towards the liquidation of the meaning of the proletariat. Because the proletarian person described by the socialists of the 19th century has either disappeared or has decreased a lot. Because it is not only the birth of unions and their equipping them with new rights, At the same time, due to the development of free democratic regimes and the dominance of numbers, the working groups took an unimaginable place in the parliaments, social laws, labor contracts, collective agreements, strikes, the participation of the worker in the management of the factories, the fact that the worker had a chance to have industrial actions, and finally, every worker had a Of course, developments such as the legal possibilities for capital accumulation could not be seen in the 19th century. While these developments were unimaginable in favor of the working class, the introduction of the progressive tax system on the working classes, the prohibition of trusts and cartels that lead to great exploitation, are developments that were not foreseen in the 19th century. Therefore, if these great philosophers of the 19th century had lived in our time, there can be no doubt that

Mustafa Kemal, the son of the 20th century and the worldwide light of this period, approached the ideal of a classless society in another way, no doubt, in a more realistic and humane way. He created the basic conditions to eliminate the exploitation of man by man. The core of his social philosophy was to eliminate injustices from society by giving people equal chances of development. Statism and populism are the terms of his philosophy in this field. Social statism is to provide equality of chance and to provide balance by preventing conflict between occupational groups. One of the first measures taken by people and groups against exploiting each other is the abolition of the tithe tax (tithe) taken from the peasants and farmers in one move. Mustafa Kemal did not hesitate for a moment to take measures to eliminate exploitation wherever he saw it. Classless, The currency of an underprivileged society was both its program and its ideal. The labor law he introduced in 1936 secured the rights of workers to a degree that had little precedent in the world at the time. In Atatürk's Turkey, not only primary schools, but also secondary and higher schools and universities are free so that all children of the nation can be brought up. Major industry is in the hands of the state. The principle of mixed economy has aimed to provide both the means of the state and the power of personal initiative to the service of the nation through legitimate means for the rapid development of the country. However, national development depends only on the condition that freedom is preserved in Kemalism. A development method that can cost freedoms is outside of Kemalism. Thus, in human terms, Atatürk is far above the materialist socialists of the 19th century. We must admit that Statism, which represents the most humane principle in our country, which is actually the best solution to all social problems, has been mixed with state management, and our inexperience and corruption in management have been attributed to the principle of statism. This is a confusion of terms. Atatürk's statism is not based on the hegemony of party secretaries, on the contrary, it is normal to change the guard in party and state services, and the powers of state officials are not unlimited and they are subject to control. Thus, while moving towards the ideal of a classless society, the way to create a new class was not opened. This road is closed forever. As long as we understand Kemalism properly and apply it well. -which is actually the best solution to all social problems- it is mixed with state management and our inexperience in management and sometimes corruptions are attributed to the principle of statism. This is a confusion of terms. Atatürk's statism is not based on the hegemony of party secretaries, on the contrary, it is normal to change the guard in party and state services, and the powers of state officials are not unlimited and they are subject to control. Thus, while moving towards the ideal of a classless society, the way to create a new class was not opened. This road is closed forever. As long as we understand Kemalism properly and apply it well. -which is actually the best solution to all social problems- it is mixed with state management and our inexperience in management and sometimes corruptions are attributed to the principle of statism. This is a confusion of terms. Atatürk's statism is not based on the hegemony of party secretaries, on the contrary, it is normal to change the guard in party and state services, and the powers of state officials are not unlimited and they are subject to control. Thus, while moving towards the ideal of a classless society, the way to create a new class was not opened. This road is closed forever. As long as we understand Kemalism properly and apply it well. Changing the guard is normal in party and state services, and the powers of state officials are not unlimited and are subject to control. Thus, while moving towards the ideal of a classless society, the way to create a new class was not opened. This road is closed forever. As long as we understand Kemalism properly and apply it well. Changing the guard is normal in party and state services, and the powers of state officials are not unlimited and are subject to control. Thus, while moving towards the ideal of a classless society, the way to create a new class was not opened. This road is closed forever. As long as we understand Kemalism properly and apply it well.

Classical, that is, in the 19th century and until the end of World War I, groups called right-wing parties have a traditionalist understanding of nationality against rapid developments and especially revolutions, since they are conservative in character. For this reason, it is unthinkable that Kemalism has a relationship with those in this group. Because Kemalism is reformism and its most advanced form is revolutionism.

The Concepts of Nation and Nationality and Their Developments Over Time, Atatürk's Understanding of Nationality

Nation: It is a society that unites in its culture and nature, shares the same destiny, the same obligation, and established its state. When a mass of people establishes its state, it becomes a nation.

Nationality is hearing that you belong to a nation.

Nation and nationality understandings have changed over time. The age of nationalities in Europe begins to appear in the time of Napoleon. Back then, the French called themselves "the great nation". Some other communities also regarded this tariff as if it was natural and predestined. The British, in their solitude on the island, called themselves "great and ancient Britain". This is a description of a homeland rather than a natural nation. Since the French Revolution, the nation is a community affiliated to the same state, shaped by historical events that have emerged with the general will. According to the German understanding, the nation is the sum of those born in a homeland. According to Renan, the nation is the sum of those who consider themselves to be members of a community. According to one understanding, racial or regional characteristics and divisions can be found in such a society. Such people can form a federal nation. According to another understanding, The nation is a united unit, dependent on a central government. So it's not federal in character. In Switzerland, the peoples whose mother tongues are German, French, Italian and Romance were able to unite as a nation. This is the "sworn community". Their ancestors were bound together by oath 700 years ago for a common resistance to the tyranny of the Austrian dynasty. A nation was born with the union of the cantons participating in this oath.

The efforts of societies that have reached the level of nation to establish a state are considered legitimate. And this is called the national movement. The liberal and democratic tendencies of the bourgeoisie created the pioneers of the nationality movement, which started in the 18th century and intensified in the 19th century. After the Second World War, the national movement in Asia and Africa accelerated and became a characteristic symptom of our age. These new nations resisted colonialism and established socialist regimes.

The sense of nationality is that individuals in a society feel themselves connected to the whole and an element of it and are ready to reveal their existence for that society. In order for a society to become a nation, in the classical definition, common race, language, culture, customs, morals and destiny are sought, but as a result of the spread and mixing of races due to historical events, there is no pure-racial society left. The emotional element, which consists of the unity of language, culture and destiny and feeling connected to a society, now comes to the fore. Although religion is one of the elements that create culture, and the existence of non-religious nations prevents this element from being considered one of the basic conditions, of course, the unity of a nation in the understanding of God and conscience helps cultural unity.

The factor that clinches the elements that create the nationality together is a common history and common victories. In fact, sometimes a great victory alone becomes the element that creates the nation.

As it is seen, the subjective element such as the sense of being connected to a society and being ready for every sacrifice until death for its independence and freedom is predominant as much as the objective elements such as homeland in the sense of nation.

The character of Atatürk's nationalism

In our country II. Before the Constitutional Monarchy (1908), the ideal of an ummah and ummatism was dominant instead of the meanings of nation and nationality. Ummah is a community of people who adhere to the same religion. To this ummahism was added loyalty to the Ottoman dynasty and empire. Under the firm of Ottomanism, we were connected to our own society under the name of reaya of Turkish, Arab, Islamic, Caucasian and Greek communities for centuries. When the nationalist movements started in Europe, these communities rebelled against the empire by adhering to the ideal of being separate nations. However, the Party of Union and Progress, which dominated the destiny of the country in this period, was in the desire to fuse and unite all these elements. For a while in the first days of the Constitutional Monarchy, this illusion of unification seemed to come true. The Ottoman state was very tolerant of racial and religious minorities. They were even provided with privileges and advantages that the Turkish element did not enjoy. From time to time, key positions in the state were given to them, trade and industry were left to them, and privileges were given for their cultural advancement. But it was not possible for the nationality movements that had begun in Europe not to reach them. Moreover, the independence movements of these minorities were encouraged and supported from outside. Among these supporters were platonic lovers of Hellenism like Lord Byron, as well as hostile agitators working to overthrow the Turks, who had frightened Europe for centuries. Thus, tension and hatred arose between the Turks who did not yet say they were Turkish, but those who said they were Ottomans and belonged to the Muslim Ummah, and minorities. In this case, it was natural for the Turks to wake up and return to their own self in the face of betrayals. This is how the first conscious national movement started in our country. In the past, the feeling of homeland had started with the leadership of Namık Kemal and Hâmit. But national consciousness had not yet been formed. The concept of homeland was not Turkey, but Muslim countries and the empire. Namık Kemal's homeland, who said, "Go, wear black in the Kaaba," also included the Kaaba.

II. After the Second Constitutional Monarchy, the Turks were forced into a kind of self-defense. Minorities everywhere began to be betrayed and rebelled. The Ottoman state was a sick man. The great states wanted to facilitate the death of the patient and to be inherited. The only disagreement between them was who would get the lion's share of the inheritance. For this reason, supporting the minorities was in line with the policy of the big states. Serbs, Romanians, Bulgarians and Greeks gained their independence one by one in the age of born nationality. Thus, the Turks heard that they were alone and abandoned in the world. The Turkish nationalist movement was beginning. Turkish Hearth is the first organ and core of this new ideal. The leaders of this first movement were Ziya Gökalp, Yusuf Akçora, Ağaoğlu Ahmet, Ahmet Hikmet, Veled Çelebi, Kilisli Rıfat, Mehmet Emin, Ağlarcızade Hakkı. This first nationalist movement adopted the ideal of gathering all societies belonging to the Turkish race under one flag. This ideal is called Turanism and Red Apple. A great and strong Turkey was desired. We had so many enemies in the world and so many problems at home that these obligations could only be solved by uniting all Turks in the world. For this, the necessary linguistic and cultural unity in the Turkish race was accepted. Ziya Gökalp and Veled Çelebi were trying to strengthen this belief by introducing historical sources. Unfortunately, it was not enough to come from the same racial root to become a nation. It was necessary to have geographical unity, to have lived together for many centuries, to be culturally fused, and finally to defeat a very large state of which the Turks outside were nationals. Although they come from the same root as us, The Germans, Germany, Austria, Sweden, Norway did not unite and form a Germanic state. Despite all the efforts of pan-Islamism, the Slavs could not unite as a state.

The efforts to create a theocratic Muslim state and nation under the leadership of Turkey and based on religious unity, which was put forward as another formula, could not and could not be achieved for the same reason.

Kemal Atatürk was born on the stage of history when these racial and religious nationalism movements collided. He was committed to a new nationalism ideal since 1907. We call this new understanding Atatürk nationalism. In this understanding, nationality expresses unity in language and culture, in sorrow and joy, and in destiny. This nationalism is a humane Turkish nationalism, with a word that respects the rights of every nation that is demarcated by the borders of our homeland, is free from the desires of adventure and conquest, but is determined to live independently and freely, respects the rights of every nation, and is determined to protect its own rights and dignity. In Atatürk's nationalism, the hostilities and conflicts of the past can no longer be the axis of today's politics. Nations should join hands in a spirit of brotherhood. Historical grudges should be forgotten and a new understanding of history should be created and spread. One of the most important documents of his understanding of this ideal is hidden in this moment: While sitting in the Bel cafe, where our armies, who were about to enter Izmir, took a final break on the 8th day of September 1922, we watched from afar as Greek soldiers, with sword remnants, rushed towards the Aegean shores in devastated groups. dives. After a while, he turns to İnönü, who is next to him, and says: “We cleared our account by defeating the Greeks, but I will soon establish a Turkish-Greek agreement and friendship”. As a matter of fact, Venizelos was invited to Turkey shortly after and the first step was taken to the Turkish-Greek agreement. While sitting in the Bel cafe, where our armies, who were about to enter İzmir on the day of the day, took their last break, he watches from afar as Greek soldiers with sword remnants are throwing their lives towards the Aegean shores in miserable groups. After a while, he turns to İnönü, who is next to him, and says: “We cleared our account by defeating the Greeks, but I will soon establish a Turkish-Greek agreement and friendship”. As a matter of fact, Venizelos was invited to Turkey shortly after and the first step was taken to the Turkish-Greek agreement. While sitting in the Bel cafe, where our armies, who were about to enter İzmir on the day of the day, took their last break, he watches from afar as Greek soldiers with sword remnants are throwing their lives towards the Aegean shores in miserable groups. After a while, he turns to İnönü, who is next to him, and says: “We cleared our account by defeating the Greeks, but I will soon establish a Turkish-Greek agreement and friendship”. As a matter of fact, Venizelos was invited to Turkey shortly after and the first step was taken to the Turkish-Greek agreement.

In addition to this humanitarian aspect of Atatürk's nationalism, there is another aspect that makes Turkey's independence and freedom the most cherished duty. "How happy is the one who says I am a Turk!" When he said that, he was expressing this source of great excitement. There is no sacrifice that cannot be taken for the sake of the independence of this nation, in this nationalism.

A new Turkish history and Turkish language thesis was created to create objective and subjective foundations for the new Turkish nationalism. These theses aim to eliminate the complexes that misfortunes and defeats have placed in us for centuries. In this way, Mustafa Kemal drew the attention of world science as well as Turks to the sources of Turkish culture and language. The science of Turkology has gained a new meaning.

In Atatürk's nationalism, there is respect for other nations as well as respecting the dignity of our own nation. It is possible to see his sensitivity on this issue in his treatment of a great state ambassador from a matter of address. The envoy, who was subjected to this harsh treatment, was recalled by his own state and severely punished.

One of the trusts left by this nation to its leaders is knowing how to make our nation count. The determination and insistence to take Hatay back from the French, which is within the borders of the National Pact, the fortitude shown in risking everything with England to save Mosul in Lausanne, are the characteristic signs of the understanding of nationality. He showed a respect for nation and nationality in general that could only be described as high. During the days of the Erzurum Congress, General Harbord's answer to the question of "what if you can't succeed" is the most definitive proof of this: "If a nation takes action for a cause they believe in, there can be no fear of failure."

These are the main lines and features of Atatürk's nationalism.

Atatürk's nationalism in this sense is one of the basic principles of the new Turkey. We can learn about Atatürk's understanding of nationalism from his words:

“We are such nationalists that we respect all nations that cooperate with us, we recognize all the facts of their nationalism, our nationalism is not selfish and proud nationalism.”

"We are Turkish nationalists, we should know that nations that do not know their national identity become prey to other nations."

“Unless the spirit of a nation is captured, it is impossible to dominate that nation.”

“As Turkish children get to know their ancestors, they will find the strength to do bigger things.”

“There will be no Bolshevikism in Turkey, because the first aim of the Turkish government is to give freedom and happiness to the people.”

The love and faith of the nation prompted him to study Turkish history and language. The feeling that these works inspired him shows in his words, which cannot be said better:

"Peace at home peace in the world!" The real meaning of this maxim is the existence of a unity of destiny among nations.

Our nation has a right to live and a duty to civilization in this world. We are worthy of this role with our history, language and culture. We are nationalists in order to fulfill this role with honor and to live freely and independently.

Atatürk's Social Views

It is Atatürk who gives a whole new scope and meaning to the term statism. In the West, "etotism" is defined only as the direct intervention of the state in the people's economy, although it is understood as a term with uncertain boundaries and a controversial essence, Atatürk has given this meaning a brand new essence. First of all, we must say that Atatürk's statism has not only an economic but also a social content and motive, perhaps even more than that.

Since people are born with free and equal rights, they should have equal opportunities and opportunities in physical, moral and mental development. Long before 1945, when “equal opportunities” became a world slogan, Atatürk heard this truth and showed the way to realize it by not just hearing it. Here, the first motif of Atatürk's statism is that he considers the state responsible for creating equality of opportunity. The cultural, financial and economic laws adopted in his time were the instruments of this kind of statism. Primary education, community center, letter and language revolutions, financial reforms that started with the abolition of tithe are in this group. The second social motif is the ideal of creating a "classless, privileged society". This, of course, does not mean to deny the existence of groups with opposite interests, opposite groups, workers and employers, labor and capital representatives. It only expresses the effort to make the clash between those groups unnecessary. This means broad acceptance of state arbitration. The state will naturally use this arbitration by protecting the weak masses. For this purpose, the laws of Atatürk's period and some legislation prepared in accordance with his mentality show the application forms of this arbitration. The transition to the lockout and strike period has been a transition to another view in this regard.

Social State:

If social classes are left in need of struggle outside of state arbitration, it can lead to the collapses we see in many countries. Atatürk established social statism to make these struggles unnecessary.

The social motif of Atatürk's statism is "to prevent people from exploiting people". The state industry aims at curbing illegitimate gains with legitimate competition, opening up workspace for citizens according to their abilities, and creating examples of enterprises. Exploitative trusts and cartels cannot arise in countries with state industry. Finally, statism has an obvious social essence that leads to social justice. In the state industry, a level gap cannot be opened between those who work and those who work. Participation of the worker in the management to a certain extent allows for an effective control. This was provided in the labor law issued by Atatürk, in the employment agency of workers' insurance, which bears the traces of Atatürk's mentality.

Many people think that Atatürk's statism is a state-sponsored industrialization forced by the conditions of a poor country. Although Atatürk's statism includes an economic core, it is rather social. Unfortunately, many factors have discredited this social etatism. At first the character of this statism was not well defined. Then, statism and state management were mixed together and the sin of inexperience, failures and sometimes abuses in management was attributed to statism. Actually, these are different things. In competent hands, the faults of business can be reduced to the lowest level. As a matter of fact, it has been seen that the state transactions that have passed into competent hands have been very successful. Finally, statism was worn out by the left and right extremes. Tried to present right-end statism as an enemy to private enterprise, the left side wanted to give statism a God-state essence and use it against all kinds of private enterprise. However, Atatürk's statism is libertarian and nationalist. Atatürk's statism is not against private enterprise, but against its abuse.

As a matter of fact, the state industry provided the courage, personnel, some capital and raw materials to industrial enterprises today. These two creative forces can well support each other. It can establish a closer cooperation. However, a balance and cooperation could not be established in practice. But it would be unfair to call the responsibility for this in statism.

The main reason for the hesitations and faltering is the failure of political powers to understand and explain Atatürk's principles properly and not to learn well from world crises. Even to this extent, no one would dare to deny what Atatürk's statism brought to the country. Only the nationalization of foreign concession facilities brought billions to the country, and more importantly, it ended the exploitation of the nation and our country's being a semi-colonial and open market.

There are many who complain that the borders of Atatürk's statism are not clearly drawn. But if it is not drawn artificially to the right and left, these borders have been drawn. This border is surrounded by the social justice principle of a free society. So much so that, on the one hand, the state will not be deified and will remain respectful to freedoms, and on the other hand, the society will be balanced and approach the ideal of being without privilege and class. These limits specify the norms that can be applied in each period.

In fact, Kemalism as a philosophical worldview is an effort to find a middle way. It is a tendency to stay away from extremes. That is a new rationality.

In all of Atatürk's actions and initiatives, rationality away from emotional tendencies draws attention. This philosophy has made him a future-oriented man. The clearest proof of his attitude is his statism. We must protect this ideology and apply it to the world as a Turkish thesis against both capitalism and Marxism. At that time, most of the political conflicts in our country and even in the world could have been prevented. Liberal capitalism and Marxism are both 19th century views. Atatürk's statism is a 20th century understanding. By nature, it is closer to the people of today and is more humane.

Since we have just moved to a free democratic regime in our country, we tend to regard the left and right as a principle adopted everywhere today. In fact, the right and the left were born in the 19th century and during the First World War, especially the II. It is a concept that has lost its essence and meaning at the end of the World War, and at least changed it. Until the end of the First World War, the left, which represented labor, and the right parties, which adopted capital, struggled as much as possible and they also struggled with the groups they represented.

However, the World War II disaster made the right and left out of date, and this differentiation has become obsolete. Let us give a couple of typical examples: The party that still carries the conservative name in England today is on the path of social reformism. The Socialist Democratic Party could not keep up with the social reform programs of the Christian Democrats, which are called conservative in Germany, and the new social programs are resisting communism, that is, the left end with the will of the people. So, even if the fan parties continue to carry their old names, their identity has completely changed and thus the classical meaning of "fan" has changed.

Atatürk, before anyone else, sensed that the world would go here. The main character of the People's Party he founded in his own time appears as follows:

1 — This party is not a party that will divide the nation, but a national dominant idea, that is, a movement of concentration that will unite it in nationalist, social and progressive principles.

2 — This movement is not based on classes, and it is determined to make the class struggle unnecessary. This success will be achieved through reforms and state arbitration. The slogan of the party is to be a “classless, unprivileged nation”. It believed that the principle of statism would achieve the most productive of the expected results from the class struggle, and it succeeded to achieve this on a large scale.

3 — A peaceful, faithful and ardent nationalism is essential in this movement. "How happy is the one who says I am a Turk!" Its motto is not right-wing racism, but healthy, humane and imperative nationalism.

With these three characters, Kemalism and its party fan terminology are neither a right nor a left party. It is a unique worldview. And of course, considering the practices seen in today's world, it reflects an advanced understanding. The tendency of the world to embark on this path is clear: the Soviets, while remaining socialist, felt obliged to open a window to freedom (Gorbachev principles). The place of the classical right and left parties in free Europe has been so shaken and confused that today no one can say the place of these parties in the spectrum with the 19th century terminology. The proletarian group in the banner of Marx's left-wing flag "Let all the world's proletarians unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains" leaves its original meaning in free Europe and instead, free people are common to all industrial facilities. capitalist America, It takes on a social character with the "new order" movement that started with Roosevelt. What the father did:

a) At a time when the national budget did not exceed 150 million liras and his income "exceeds" one third of the budget, Atatürk abolished this tax at once. We do not think that such an audacious operation has been carried out in the state budget for the development of the peasantry in the financial history of the world. The tithe was a tithe from the produce of the land. The state would sell this tax to tax farmers by auction. Mültezim also used state forces when necessary to collect taxes in order to pay his debts to the state and make as much profit as possible. This tax was unjust, levied at the same rate from the rich and the poor, and it did not provide any living allowance. Thus, he would make the villager the reward of the tax collector and sharecropper. With the abolition of the tithe, the peasants were freed from exploitation and the ecirlik complex.

b) It is He who nationalizes all technical and industrial facilities by completely abolishing foreign privileges that exploit more peasants than anyone else. This nationalization move was carried out without making new debts, that is, without a mortgage for future generations.

c) With the first 5-year plan, very important steps were taken towards establishing the main industry and these efforts were carried out by Sümerbank and Etibank, which are his works. Atatürk cannot be blamed for the fact that this understanding of economic statism could not produce greater works due to mistakes and inexperience in state management.

d) It is He who delivers the main roads and railways to the regions where the caravan does not fly, regardless of their profitability calculations, only as an infrastructure service.

e) While the majority of our population, which was around 12 million when the state took over their fate, was suffering from diseases such as malaria, tuberculosis and trachoma, creating the first and enormous social health facilities and creating a workable generation is an infrastructural service that is rarely seen. Let's also take a look at his infrastructural services in the spiritual field.

f) The phrase “The peasant is the master of the nation” is a world view and a program of action for Atatürk as a leader who always followed his words. This phrase tells not only what he thinks but also what he hears for the mass that constitutes the national infrastructure. To give more light to this view, he expressed his understanding of a peaceful and progressive nation with the following formula: "We are a classless and unprivileged society." This is the best expression of an advanced worldview of making class wars unnecessary. He brought the peasant woman to the ranks of the Grand National Assembly in order to give a symbolic content to the struggle to make the peasant the master of the nation.

g) He created the basic structure of spiritual development by putting forward the thesis of a national history and a national language in order to destroy the complexes that settled in the souls during the collapse of our history. This service was completed with the letter revolution. No more radical infrastructure service can be imagined to bring literacy to the masses. He is the one who not only brought a free and democratic life order to our nation, but also created a moral infrastructure such as equality between men and women, which the eastern world was not accustomed to. These services, which we have touched on with the speed of a storyboard, show that Ata's main qualification is an “infrastructure architect”. He has removed the barriers that prevent us from being a free, peaceful, strong and prosperous society one by one. Let's repeat it again: All these infrastructure services fit in 13 years. Of course, the needs of a nation can never come to an end. Of course, the details of the liberation war from backwardness could not be completed in 13 years. We should have continued that magnificent beginning with the same speed, with the same faith. The intervention of the Second World War and after it a lot of troubles slowed down the national momentum.

Those who find Atatürk inadequate as an infrastructure architect tend to seek and show other ideals as a remedy for the backwardness of the country. Right and left extremes agree on this view. According to our belief, Atatürk created the most realistic and effective philosophy of life not only for Turkey but also for all developing countries. For this reason, the common slogan in the development of the country should not be to deny Atatürk, but to return to him. Carrying a social head suitable for the nation, away from all kinds of captivity regimes, makes it easier to return to Him. His path is closed to both capitalism and communism. Statism and its ideal "classless and unprivileged social philosophy" is the formula not to oppress the weak against the strong in the economic and social field and to develop the great masses as soon as possible. For him, his populism and statism are both social and economic.

The greatest infrastructure architect has entrusted us with the most practical and most effective synthesis that has taken its source entirely from our own conditions. Strangely enough, while the world expresses its admiration for this synthesis, there may be some doubters among us.

Finally, some say that there can be no measure of forward and backwardness, and they find these meanings relative because of this measurelessness.

But by looking at the facts, there is progress and backwardness in the lives of individuals and societies, and there are definite measures of these. For example, lack of freedom is a backward stage, freedom is a forward stage.

Back to a life without guarantees, forward to a life with guarantees.

Ignorance is backward, knowledge is forward.

Bigotry is backward, tolerance is forward.

Class society is backward, classless society is advanced.

Where to look for positive measures of progressiveness? In terms of the main lines of human history, it is a gradual rise from a backward lifestyle to an advanced understanding of life. Thus, what falls behind this line is reactionary, what falls behind is progressive. However, this development has not come to an end and is not going to stop. For example, if we look at the history of the struggle for freedom, it is seen that the job was conquered by the easy side. This relatively simple first stage of freedom consists in the fearless and free expression of ideas. This is undoubtedly a great human progress, but this is not the real freedom of thought, the real freedom is the right birth of ideas, that is, the ability to think right. This is not only the freedom of language, but also the freedom of the brain. For this reason, humanity has not yet reached this second freedom. For this, an unimaginable move is needed, such as getting rid of all preconceptions. Humanity first took a step towards such freedom in the Renaissance. This step was a humanist movement, then he took a second step and embarked on the reformation movement. This was a movement to get rid of religious bigotry and dogmatism. This step has not been achieved even today. Against the Reformation movement, theology started to compete by passing new struggles.

A more definite success in the field of freedom of the mind has emerged in the positive sciences since the 18th century. It cannot be thought of as a useful tool for the freedom of the mind as much as the positive sciences. Although great strides have been made with these three moves, it cannot be claimed that the human mind has attained full freedom today.

However, it is no longer possible to take back the humanity that has come the distance. Together with Namık Kemal, we can say to the opponents of freedom on this issue, “Work, remove the perception, if you are able, you are ademiyed”. No matter what, freedom is a forward stage where humanity struggles the hardest. For him, all movements of deregulation are reactionary.

It is more difficult to find the measure that we can easily find in freedom in some areas. For example, the struggle for the protection of large masses from misery in the social and economic field is undoubtedly progressive. But today the goal of this struggle appears in two opposing directions. And both of them are trying to achieve social justice by "expropriating everyone". The second movement, on the other hand, is trying to realize social justice with the motto "property for all".

Today, 4 million families own property in Germany through small actions. Efforts of many factories to make workers partners and to participate in the enterprise are also in this group.

Let's come to another social struggle of our time: one view, starting from class reality, is trying to achieve social justice through war between classes and to give the working classes new means of struggle. On the other hand, the other thesis follows the ideal of a classless society, which consists of classes and occupations according to the division of labor. Which of these is progress? Is human history flowing towards classification or declassification? If we look at the Middle Ages, we see distinctly striped classes: the clergy, the zadegan, and the commoners. These were real classes that were strictly disciplined and could not be passed from one to the other. Has such an understanding of class remained since then? Today, no group is a closed entity. In fact, it should never have been a "clergy class" anyway. It can't be today, labor is a work group today, and nowhere is there a class called zadegan. Therefore, human evolution does not move towards classifications, on the contrary, towards declassification.

Another progress war of our century is in the field of social reforms. We can say right away that social reforms are not monopolized by certain ideologies, it was Beveric who introduced the world's largest and most radical reform. Atatürk's reforms are based on progressive social and nationalism. The world is probably moving towards the abolition of privileges and the principle of equal opportunity. Atatürk is the person who is at the forefront of these views.

Humanist Ataturk

“Peace at home, peace in the world!” its motto can only be that of a humanist. In our world, which has gone through the disaster of the two world wars, humanism can no longer be the narrow-framed humanism of the 13th or 16th centuries and the renaissance, such as recognizing people as saints and creating common cultural values. 20th century humanism has to aim at the following goals: 1 — Wars that bring only blood, tears and misery to the conquered and the vanquished (with the exception of defensive wars, of course).

2 — It should save man from the push of gross instincts and bring nobility to spirits.

3 — It should prevent people and nations from exploiting each other.

4 — Humanity must attain full freedom.

We can say that these four principles are actually present in Atatürk's humanism. On September 9, 1922, when he entered Izmir with his victorious armies, he admired the Greek soldiers, who were throwing themselves on the shores from far away, and soon said to his companions, “I will soon establish friendships with these Greeks I have defeated for the sake of Mediterranean and world peace.”22

When he saw the painting, which was sent to him by an old comrade to celebrate his victory, showing a Greek soldier being bayoneted by a Turkish soldier and bloodshed, he turned red and gave the official order to raise it, saying, “I would be surprised at the distraught mind of the person who sent this.”23

Mustafa Kemal is the leader of the anti-imperialist movement, which constitutes the characteristic line of our century. The sentence “It is impossible for a nation to stand up for a legitimate aim and not be successful” has been the guide for the new nations that gained independence in Asia and Africa. The mujahideen of these new states went into battle with the image of Him on their chests.

Thus, Atatürk showed his humanism not only with his intellectual works, but also with his actions. After the National Struggle, he did not apply to arms for any conflict. He did not leave the patient and difficult way of negotiation for a task that was easy to resolve with a gun, such as the Hatay issue.

That's not all; As long as he lived, he preached peace to the whole world.

It was he who clearly stated, as early as 1934, that Hitler would cause a world catastrophe and that precautions should be taken.24

Thus, the greatest humanist who brought the Turkish humanism to the peak and perfection, expressed by Yunus in the best way, is Atatürk. With this identity, humanity owes him as much gratitude as the Turkish nation.

It is our duty to be meticulous about flagging an immortal name like Atatürk, only to Kemalism. That's why we want to summarize what Kemalism is and what it cannot be: 1 — Kemalism is Turkish nationalism. It requires the happiness of being a member of this nation and being ready for every sacrifice for its honorable and independent life. Movements that damage the national feeling, suggest that we cannot live independently, and weaken the strength of endurance and solidarity of the nation cannot be Kemalism.

2 — Kemalism is freedom, freedom to end freedoms is not Kemalism.

3 — Kemalism is progressive. Whatever the disguise, the movements that will pull the nation to a backward understanding of life cannot be Kemalism.

4 — Kemalism pursues the ideal of a balanced and just society. Kemalism is not to encourage class struggle, but to realize a social justice that will not leave the need for this fight. It is up to the state to ensure social justice.

5 — Kemalism is believing in national sovereignty. Right or left dictatorships, individual or clique reigns are the opposite of Kemalism.

6 — Kemalism is pacifism. "Peace at home peace in the world!" its motto commands us to be on the peace front. Just as supporting the policy of adventure contradicts Kemalism, the currents that wear down the nation's defense enthusiasm are also betrayals to Kemalism.

7 — Kemalism is secularism. Religion does not interfere in state affairs; Religion, which satisfies the need to believe and is a moral sanction, cannot be interfered with in conscience. Flags cannot be made for religious reactionary movements.

8 — Kemalism requires nationalist social, economic, cultural and spiritual development. This behavior that will lead to the stagnation of wholesale and multi-pronged development contradicts Kemalism.

9 — Kemalism considers the state responsible for the realization of social justice; but it is against Kemalism to turn the state into a robot that erases the person and personality in this way.

10 — Kemalism is a national dynamism. It aims to get rid of the ordeal of backwardness as soon as possible. Any behavior that will disrupt this dynamism - especially bureaucracy - is against Kemalism.

11 — Kemalism, as a social justice regime, is against all kinds of exploitation. It is against this principle to provide unfair advantage to individuals by the state, knowingly or unknowingly.

12 — Kemalism is the transition from scholasticism to rationalism, which is the axis of progressiveness; Imitation is not.

13 — Kemalism is a legal regime. Every thought and behavior contrary to the rule of law contradicts Kemalism.

1 Letter of Suleiman the Magnificent to King Fransouva of France. “I am the sultan of sultans, the guide of the rulers, the crown of the rulers of the earth, the shadow of Allah in two worlds, the Persian of the Mediterranean, the Black Sea, Rumeli, Anatolia, Karaman, Zulkadriyn, Diyarbakır, Azerbaijan. Suleyman Hanim, son of Selim Han, the sultan and sultan of many lands that I conquered myself, of Damascus, Egypt, Mecca, Medina, the whole Arab lands—which they had conquered with the strength of the swords of the great Ancestors. You, who are Francissco, the king of the Frence province, send me a letter with your admin Franjan, informing me that the enemy has entered your country and that you are imprisoned, by sending some word of mouth, and you give me your grace, help and favor in your salvation. Whatever you said, it was submitted to my presence. Now the sultans are not incapable of cringing and being imprisoned. Keep your heart kind, don't let your heart be broken, Our Great Ancestors have always had no planes left to drive off the enemy and conquer countries. My horse was saddled and our sword was girded day and night by following their path and conquering lands and steep castles. May Allah grant him good luck. You learn the situation and the news from your master. (Cevdet History, volume:3)

2 Strangely enough, in the 13th century, Yunus and Mevlana sang a theoretical and aesthetic humanism that made human beings sublime, and although Sheikh Galip saw man as the apple of the universe's eye in the 18th century, this humanism remained mystical, not secular, or institutionalized.

3 Turkish-Italian Cultural Relations p.3.

4 This affidavit, written in French, has been translated into Turkish by Sadullah Pasha and is in Ebüzziya's handwriting.

It was sent to the Sultan.

5 This article was written in 1869, that is, thirty years after the Tanzimat.

6 Hürriyet newspaper, No.35.

7 Ali Fuat Pasha memories.

8 Kemal Ataturk; Speech

9 Rivers: Republic 17-11-1967.

10 Rivers: Milliyet 10.3.11971.

11 W. Durant: Die Grossen Denker, 234.

12 Mahmut Esat: History of Islam.

13 Sebilürresat magazine.

14 Ziya Gökalp: The Principles of Turkism

15 Kemal Atatürk: Speech; Kinross: Ataturk

16 Kemal Atatürk: Speech, p.6

17 Ali Fuat Cebesoy: Memories of the National Struggle

18 Ghazi Mustafa Kemal: The statement he gave to the journalists, first in Izmir and then in Izmit, following the victory.

19 Statement to reporters.

20 Bursa deputy Nurettin Pasha and some deputies.

21 It is noteworthy that among those who argue that religious legislation is sufficient as the basis of law and that primary sources are not needed, there are also freedom fighters Namık Kemal and Ziya Gökalp.

22 İnönü's memories.

23 Soyak's memories.

24 Memoirs of General Mac Arthur.

Ord. Prof. Dr. Sadi Irmak

Source: ATATÜRK ARAŞTIRMA MERKEZİ DERGİSİ, Sayı 15, Cilt V, Temmuz 1989