When Will Kemalism Follow Leninism?

[jankren]

Father of The Turks

Part1:

Part2:

Lenin and Ataturk rose into power in about the same era. However, while Lenin's legacy is beginning to completely lose its foothoold in Russia, Kemalism and the cult figure of Ataturk remain very strong in Turkey. So Im wondering will Kemalism ever disappear in the minds of the Turks?

Peace,

[Miraj]

Kemal Ataturk is fundamentally a different character than Lenin. Lenin was a communist ideologue first and a Russian second. Kemal was Turk first and foremost. He defended Turkey from Greek and allied aggression at its weakest and most needed hours and is thus heavily ingrained in the Turkish psyche. He baby stepped the Turkish nations from the darkness of medieval caliphate to the light of a secular republic.

Muslims need more Ataturks.

[RusskiSoldat]

Lenin is still highly popular among a significant minority of Russians, despite the fact that he hated Russian and Russians.
Mustafa Kemal loved his people and did much to further their causes, so I don't see love for him dying out.

[Icefrisco]

He did many good things: helped to preserve world security, turned Turkey into a first world country, reformed the Turkish army, and saved Turkey from invasion. Also, he loved his people while respecting his enemies. Unlike many other Turkish generals he did not take part in the Armenian Holocaust.

[Miraj]

Just finished watching that. Really great documentary. Its great that Al-Jazeera would produce such a balanced piece on him - not that I'd expect anything less from them. Thanks Jankren.

[Primvs Sextvs Loverlord]

I agree with mirage and Russki on this one. Kemal and Lenin were two different personalities and ideologies altogether. For starters, Lenin was pro-worker and anti-capitalist while Kemal was a fierce nationalist and capitalist in his life-style.

jankern, I really don't know if Kemalism will meet the same fate or not but what I want to see is a spreading of his ideology to Pakistan, at least. The Arab states have their kings using religion to subdue their sheep and since they have a thing against the Turks, I don't see them adopting it.

The problem is that although the fundamentalists are in a minority in the assembly, they're the noisiest and they want the semi-literate and illiterate majority to think that secularism literally means "anti-religion". They instill the fear of rampant prostitution and drunkards running around the streets if secularism is introduced. Although more than 90% of Pakistan's laws are secular (meaning that they've been made via a constitution and a national assembly instead of Quranic references or with the help of mullahs), the far-right Mullahs have been able to make sure that oppressive ordinances such as the Hudood Ordinance still stay.

Although the Turkish religious party (Justice and Development Party) is set for another election win, it's predicated that their majority will be cut down substantially this time round. For example, instead of 360 seats, they're probably gonna get to keep only around 300 this time. They draw their support from the poor semi-literate masses - the kind that elected Ahmedinejad in Iran because they were promised a better life.

I don't know what to say about the Kurds though. They're ungrateful, to begin with. How will the divided Kurds fare if, for instance, Syria, Iran and Iraq give them land for their own country? They'd be so weak that Al-Qaeda will conquer them in 30 seconds. I guess it'd be good if both the Kurdish terrorists and Al-Qaeda terrorists fight and kill each other.

Fortunately for Kemal Attaturk and Turkey, the centarist secular Turks are very vocal and patriotic and will not let a bunch of Mullahs destroy their country. After all, Turkey is not just any country, it used to be a super-power empire in it's time. Kelamism will stay and the Turkish military will make sure of that. People have been talking about the failure of secularism in Turkey for over 4 decades. People who believe this should live a year in either Iran or Saudi Arabia and see what they think about it then.

[Primvs Sextvs Loverlord]

He did many good things: helped to preserve world security, turned Turkey into a first world country, reformed the Turkish army, and saved Turkey from invasion. Also, he loved his people while respecting his enemies.

Agreed.

Unlike many other Turkish generals he did not take part in the Armenian Holocaust.

lolll don't mention the "genocide" otherwise they'll come to this thread and start beating their chests over it!

Just finished watching that. Really great documentary. Its great that Al-Jazeera would produce such a balanced piece on him - not that I'd expect anything less from them. Thanks Jankren.

Yeah, that's true. Surprisingly, Al-Jazeera English has turned out to be very balanced in it's views. Some people are still afraid of it though because of either a phobia or because their television network doesn't want them to switch over.

[jankren]

jankern, I really don't know if Kemalism will meet the same fate or not but what I want to see is a spreading of his ideology to Pakistan, at least. The Arab states have their kings using religion to subdue their sheep and since they have a thing against the Turks, I don't see them adopting it.

The problem is that although the fundamentalists are in a minority in the assembly, they're the noisiest and they want the semi-literate and illiterate majority to think that secularism literally means "anti-religion". They instill the fear of rampant prostitution and drunkards running around the streets if secularism is introduced. Although more than 90% of Pakistan's laws are secular (meaning that they've been made via a constitution and a national assembly instead of Quranic references or with the help of mullahs), the far-right Mullahs have been able to make sure that oppressive ordinances such as the Hudood Ordinance still stay.

Actually I think Pervez Musharraf is in the best position to be the Ataturk of Pakistan. However, unfortunately he does not seem to possess the great charisma and vision of Mustafa Kemal.

I don't know what to say about the Kurds though. They're ungrateful, to begin with. How will the divided Kurds fare if, for instance, Syria, Iran and Iraq give them land for their own country? They'd be so weak that Al-Qaeda will conquer them in 30 seconds. I guess it'd be good if both the Kurdish terrorists and Al-Qaeda terrorists fight and kill each other.

I personally think the Turkishness policy of Turkey is kind of ridiculous. What is wrong with being Armenian Turk, Greek Turk, Arab Turk or Kurdish Turk? So long as everyone is guaranteed of equal rights I dont think there would be a problem emerging from granting people to preserve their cultures. The last time I heard the Kurds are not even allowed to speak Kurdish publicly in Turkey. I dont know if this law has been abolished.

Peace,

[Miraj]

I'll have to agree with Jankren on the issue of "Turkishness". The brutality that the Kurds and Armenians have suffered at the hands of the Turkish nationalism is horrendous. Up until recently people were not even allowed to speak Kurdish or identify themselves as such. Its just a travesty considering that the Kurds and Armenians are far more ancient inhabitants of those lands than the Turks. I just think Turks need to seriously tone down the their nationalism. It seems they've thrown out one mistake (islamic gov't) only to embrace another (blind nationalism).

[Princeps]

As an anarchist I find the worship of power and leaders as entirely repulsive. Leaders and violent institutions (such as governments) rarely improve the world --- its the popular movements that represent real civilization.

Araturk created a state establishment which has had extremely violent and oppressive tendencies, praticullarly against the Kurds who were oppressed -- with all forms of torture imaginable, brutalities, mass murder etc -- while the extremely power-worshipping, timid Western intellectual culture admires Turkey because its so "democratic" and "secular".

[Isbolg]

Actually I think Pervez Musharraf is in the best position to be the Ataturk of Pakistan. However, unfortunately he does not seem to possess the great charisma and vision of Mustafa Kemal.

Not a chance. Musharraf is a complete scumball with one and only one priority - Pervez Musharraf. Diametric opposite of Ataturk.

It was pretty funny when he did his recent Western tour: a newspaper that interviewed him quoted him saying something which made him look bad about the plight of a Pakistani woman refugee. So one or two days later, when he was speaking to a women's group, he accused them of lying. The newspaper responded by putting the tape of him saying what they'd quoted him saying on the Internet. How stupid do you have to be to deny something you said while being taped? But I guess in Pakistan the newspaper would have known to drop the subject before the army closed it down.

The (kind of) good news is that he's lasted about as long as most Pakistani leaders have, so he should be leaving power any time now. But who's going to replace him? If it's another general, what will their attitude towards using their nuclear weapons be?

Pakistan is a horrible, horrible mess

[removeduser_487563287433]

Ataturk was certainly one of the finer leaders of the 20th century.

[jimkatalanos]

Kemalism=Extreme Nationalism
Leninism=Communism
They have nothing in common.
Leninism is perhaps the most temperate type of communism.
Kemalism is the Turkish nationalism, which worships Kemal.

[KaerMorhen]

K. Ataturk is national hero for many Turks no doubt about that and he gained such 'worship' by the way he transformed Turkey into modern state. Of course there're many who paid the price of such transformation but it was like it'll always be - nothing new really, He did his duty for sure.
Lenin was ranting madman who established the most inhuman, sick and malicious system ever. Only complete dumb or bad to the bone could 'worship' him and his descendants. The sum of all plagues together can't compete with hecatomb they commited in the name of their private deeds and ambitions.
It's insulting to put K. Ataturk in the same row with such invidual like Lenin...Hitler fits better.

[jimkatalanos]

Lenin wasn't so harsh, blame Stalin.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Lenin was just as brutal as Stalin, but did not live enough to knock up as many kills.

[KaerMorhen]

Lenin wasn't so harsh, blame Stalin.

Without Lenin and his lapdog Dzierżyński - Stalin most likely will remain petty thug at Ochrana payroll down south in Georgia . They created opportunities and METHODS which Stalin so eagerly upgraded or made them more 'effective' when he's become STALIN finally.

[jimkatalanos]

I don't remember Lenin ordering mass murders.

[removeduser_487563287433]

I don't remember Lenin ordering mass murders.

He did.

[KaerMorhen]

I don't remember Lenin ordering mass murders.

never heard about "The Great Red Terror" and "War Communism"???