Kemal Ataturk

[spartan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_Kemal_Atat%C3%BCrk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_Kemal_Atat%C3%BCrk)

So what is our (left) opinion of Kemal Ataturk?

I personally feel that for his time he did some quite progressive things such as destroying what was left of the Ottoman Empire and making Turkey a modernised, secular and Democratic Republic, giving women equal rights and also being head of one of the first states to have cordial relations (Despite Ataturk's suppression of Communists in Turkey) with the newly formed USSR.

I havent heard that many bad things about him (Except for the suppression of Communists and his attempts at Turkification of non-Turkic peoples in Turkey) though i admittedly dont know that much about the man so please give your opinions on him.

I forgot to add that whilst he suppressed Communists, Ataturk also suppressed Fascists and religious fundamentalists.

Many people see this as an act of an Autocratic leader whilst others see it as his attempt at making Turkey more stable so that it could have a Democratic future.

Take your pick as to which one you feel is the truth.

[Holden Caulfield]

the treatment of Armenians wasnt exactly perfect,

[Faux Real]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_Kemal_Atat%C3%BCrk

So what is our (left) opinion of Kemal Ataturk?

I personally feel that for his time he did some quite progressive things such as destroying what was left of the Ottoman Empire and making Turkey a modernised, secular and Democratic Republic, giving women equal rights and also being head of one of the first states to have cordial relations (Despite Ataturk's suppression of Communists in Turkey) with the newly formed USSR.

I havent heard that many bad things about him (Except for the suppression of Communists and his attempts at Turkification of non-Turkic peoples in Turkey) though i admittedly dont know that much about the man so please give your opinions on him.Destroying the Ottoman empire was not a good thing, and it wasn't his action that led to it. The carving up of the Ottoman Empire was a disaster and gave way to the successive western colonialism that's fucked the region over ever since. A lot has to do with the Arab Revolts but they happened only because the French and British promised them independence while behind the curtains promising each other protectorates and influence over the arbitrary borders they set up. Had that not happened maybe there wouldn't be such divisiveness amongst people in the region that has led to the volatility we see today.

As for Ataturk, he was a British agent and autocrat who suppressed just about everyone to set up a faux-European state. He was not at all progressive but another capitalist opportunist. The only thing I see as a positive about him is he did introduce plenty of women into his government which is a good 'first' but I wouldn't be ecstatic about seeing Hillary Clinton in government seeing how she's a class enemy.

[Bandito]

Yes,he was a great killer of Armenians and Kurdish people.

[spartan]

Yes,he was a great killer of Armenians and Kurdish people.

Like i said i dont know that much about him and the subject of Turkey's treatment of minorities, but did he really try to kill non-Turkic peoples in Turkey?

All i have read is that he tried to implement cultural Turkification on these people, so did that include the killing of them as well in some instances?

[The New Manifesto]

Like i said i dont know that much about him and the subject of Turkey's treatment of minorities, but did he really try to kill non-Turkic peoples in Turkey?

All i have read is that he tried to implement cultural Turkification on these people, so did that include the killing of them as well in some instances?
Yep. Blatent Genocide. Not somthing i would support. Also, the death of the Ottoman empire lead to rempant colonization.
I was unaware of the suppression of Communists, and with that in mind, i find it impossible for someone to consider him a "friend of the left"

[spartan]

Yep. Blatent Genocide. Not somthing i would support. Also, the death of the Ottoman empire lead to rempant colonization.
I was unaware of the suppression of Communists, and with that in mind, i find it impossible for someone to consider him a "friend of the left"

Dont worry TNM i dont.

I just wanted to find out what the opinions of those on the left were of him.

It seems that he was progressive in some areas (Secularism and women's rights) but reactionary in others (Treatment of opposition politics and non-Turks).

In his case the bad far outweighs the good by a big margin.

[Raúl Duke]

Maybe there's a parallel between Kemal Ataturk and Napoleon III?;

Both had dictorial power yet they allowed the new native (versus "comprador"; Although not sure if they had any than) bourgeoisie to rise to power (and than later rule by their usual channel: liberal republics) against (what's left of?) the aristocracy of their time.

[Fedorov]

From what I've read there was no genocide under Ataturk, the Armenian one was during world war one under the Ottoman Empire. Perhaps I'm wrong and there was more ethnic bloodshed but from all the Turks I know, and I've know a good amount, they all hold him in high regard. The destruction of the Ottoman empire was inevitable and yes you can look at him and Turkey as a capitalist stool pigeon but he did indeed modernize Turkey. Look at Turkey now in comparison to the majority of the Middle East. Its doing pretty good, especially without religion muddling everything up although aparently thats a growing problem. I'm OK with him.

[spartan]

From what I've read there was no genocide under Ataturk, the Armenian one was during world war one under the Ottoman Empire.

That's what i thought as well.

Perhaps Ataturk was in command of military forces who carried out the genocide?

[Faux Real]

That's what i thought as well.

Perhaps Ataturk was in command of military forces who carried out the genocide?
Ataturk wanted more land for Turkey so he ordered an occupation of Armenian land. He was at the forefront of the movement.

[Fedorov]

Ataturk wanted more land for Turkey so he ordered an occupation of Armenian land. He was at the forefront of the movement.

But wasn't it simply a land snatch? I believe Ataturk to be pragmatic so a weak Armenian state would make the most sense to attack, not from a racial standpoint but from a geopolitical one. Was there a systematic attempt to wipe out Armenians under Ataturk? I haven't heard of it.

[Zurdito]

I don't know much of the specifics about Ataturk but this is my analysis of all such "progressive" regimes who "modernise" a country.

Lots of regimes take on the "modernisation" of a country which the masses demand, and in doing so, channel the popular demands away from class consciousness and into reformism, whilst on the other hand crushing independent working class opposition. This doesn't make them "progressive on the one hand and reactionary on the other". Remember that as Marxists we know that progress comes from the workers, the peasants and the poor: when the elite introduce reforms, it is to avoid revolution temporarily, whilst wiping out working class self-organisation, and then pulling back those reforms as much as possible later on. So no, nothing progressive about Ataturk, there is no progressive ruling class. Any progress which happened under him was a product of class struggle: and he was ultimately working for the other side.

This doesn't mean that nothing progressive happened under his rule, but that is another question.

[Devrim]

From what I've read there was no genocide under Ataturk, the Armenian one was during world war one under the Ottoman Empire.

Mustafa Kemal was a senior (Lieutenant Colonel) army officer at the time of the Armenian massacres. People can draw their own conclusions from this. If I presented mine, I could be prosecuted under article 301 of the Turkish penal code.


from all the Turks I know, and I've know a good amount, they all hold him in high regard.

Yes, many, if not most, do. The majority of Turks also support the war in the South East. Turkey is a very nationalist country. What is your point?

Devrim

[Xiao Banfa]

My great grandfather had a gay fling with him back in the day.

[Chapaev]

After the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I, the imperialists set out to partition the empire. They occupied the straits, eastern Thrace, and several regions in Anatolia, and they seized the capital, Istanbul. By a decision of the imperialists, Greek troops invaded Izmir. Simultaneously, at, the imperialists began to work out a treaty with the sultan’s regime aimed at partitioning Turkey and enslaving the Turkish people. The national liberation movement that arose in Turkey, however, prevented the realization of these designs. The Turkish people were able to repulse the invaders, having countered them with their moral superiority, the able military leadership of Kemal Ataturk, and a material base that was being strengthened by extensive aid from Russia.

Kemal Ataturk led an anti-imperialist, bourgeois nationalist revolution in Turkey. The Anatolian peasants created the first armed force of the revolution, partisan detachments called national forces. The Anatolian national bourgeoisie, which led the Revolution, aimed at preserving the country’s territorial integrity and at creating an independent Turkish national state. The patriotic circles of the petite bourgeoisie, the intelligentsia, and especially army officers played a significant role in the revolution. The October Socialist Revolution in Russia exerted great influence on the outbreak and the course of the Kemalist Revolution. The revolution was centered in Anatolia, where at the end of 1918 and the beginning of 1919 a spontaneous popular movement arose against the occupation of a number of regions by the Entente powers.

Russia gave moral, political and material support the Turkish people. It was the first state to recognize the government of combatant Turkey and to conclude a treaty of friendship and brotherhood with Turkey, giving Turks arms, materiel, and funds.

The Kemalist Revolution and subsequent reforms, including the abolition of the sultanate in 1922, the proclaimation of a republic in 1923, and the abolition of the caliphate in 1924, transformed Turkey into a secular bourgeois republic.