{"id":438,"date":"2026-02-26T12:09:25","date_gmt":"2026-02-26T12:09:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/selahattingezer.com.tr\/?p=438"},"modified":"2026-02-26T12:09:25","modified_gmt":"2026-02-26T12:09:25","slug":"devletlestirilmis-marksizmi-yeniden-devrimcilestirmek","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/selaheddinbiyani.com.tr\/index.php\/2026\/02\/26\/devletlestirilmis-marksizmi-yeniden-devrimcilestirmek\/","title":{"rendered":"DEVLETLE\u015eT\u0130R\u0130LM\u0130\u015e MARKS\u0130ZM\u0130 YEN\u0130DEN DEVR\u0130MC\u0130LE\u015eT\u0130RMEK"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

\u2018Tarih s\u0131n\u0131flar sava\u015f\u0131 de\u011fil, s\u0131n\u0131fla\u015ft\u0131rmaya kar\u015f\u0131 s\u0131n\u0131fs\u0131zla\u015fma m\u00fccadelesidir. Kom\u00fcn s\u0131n\u0131fs\u0131zla\u015fma politik prati\u011finin etik-politik g\u00fcc\u00fcd\u00fcr. \u201cDevlete kar\u015f\u0131 kom\u00fcn\u201d, g\u00fcn\u00fcm\u00fczde devrimin yeniden devrimcile\u015ftirilmesinde \u00f6nemli bir soyutlamad\u0131r. B\u00fct\u00fcn toplumsal ili\u015fkilerin kom\u00fcnle\u015ftirilmesi prati\u011fi, ya\u015fam\u0131 s\u0131n\u0131fs\u0131zla\u015ft\u0131ran i\u00e7kin demokrasi kom\u00fcnalizmdir.\u2019 Cengiz Baysoy <\/em>(Otonom Dergisi)<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Say\u0131n \u00d6calan’\u0131n Marksizmin ament\u00fcs\u00fc olarak kabul edilen \u2018tarihin devindirici g\u00fcc\u00fc ve mutlak belirleyeni s\u0131n\u0131f sava\u015f\u0131m\u0131d\u0131r yerine, devlete kar\u015f\u0131 kom\u00fcn \u00e7at\u0131\u015fk\u0131s\u0131n\u0131 ikame ettik” \u00f6nermesi, sadece 20. y\u00fczy\u0131l sosyalist deneyimlerinin ba\u015far\u0131s\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lan zorunlu bir teorik sonu\u00e7 de\u011fil ayn\u0131 zamanda s\u0131n\u0131f\u0131 merkeze alan Modernist Marksist felsefi\/politik yakla\u015f\u0131ma kar\u015f\u0131 bir itiraz olarak okunmal\u0131d\u0131r. Marx’\u0131n \u2018tarih s\u0131n\u0131f m\u00fccadeleleri tarihidir\u2019 aksiyomu, reel sosyalizm prati\u011finde kendini do\u011frulayamam\u0131\u015f, aksine yeni tahakk\u00fcm bi\u00e7imleri \u00fcretmi\u015ftir. Bu ba\u011flamda \u00d6calan’\u0131n teorik hamlesi, dogmatik Marksizme tak\u0131l\u0131p kalmak yerine, \u00f6zg\u00fcrle\u015fme m\u00fccadelesinin yeni kavramsal ara\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131 geli\u015ftirme cesareti olarak de\u011ferlendirilebilir. Bu, olu\u015fturulacak yeni kavramsal ara\u00e7lar\u0131n, do\u011frudan \u00f6zg\u00fcrle\u015fme d\u00fczleminde \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmas\u0131 ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrle\u015fmenin yeni \u00f6znelliklerini \u00fcretmeye d\u00f6n\u00fck olmas\u0131 son derece \u00f6nemlidir. \u00c7\u00fcnk\u00fc Modernist Marksizm\u2019e ele\u015ftirimiz, a\u015fa\u011f\u0131da a\u00e7\u0131klayaca\u011f\u0131m\u0131z gibi devrim\/devrimcilik kavram\u0131ndan gittik\u00e7e uzakla\u015fmas\u0131ndan kaynaklanmaktad\u0131r. \u0130\u015fte bu yaz\u0131 ile amac\u0131m\u0131z, bu uzakla\u015fman\u0131n salt reel sosyalizm deneyiminin sorunlar\u0131ndan kaynaklanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesinden hareketle, teorik bir m\u00fcdahalenin de ka\u00e7\u0131n\u0131lmaz oldu\u011funa ili\u015fkin bir \u00e7er\u00e7eve olu\u015fturmakt\u0131r.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bu nedenle s\u0131n\u0131f indirgemecili\u011finin pratik iflas\u0131 olan Sovyet Deneyimi ba\u015fta olmak \u00fczere Reel Sosyalist d\u00fcnyan\u0131n b\u00fcy\u00fck devrimci at\u0131l\u0131m\u0131na ra\u011fmen hi\u00e7bir \u00f6znellik yaratamam\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131n\u0131n k\u00f6kenlerini bizzat Marksizmin s\u0131n\u0131f ve\/veya de\u011fer teorisinin i\u00e7inde aramak gerekir. T\u00fcrkiye Sol hareketinin ideolojik noterlik makam\u0131 gibi \u00e7al\u0131\u015fan belli kesimlerinin bu \u2018Marksizmin reddidir; Marksizmin d\u0131\u015f\u0131na \u00e7\u0131kmad\u0131r\u2019 \u00e7\u0131k\u0131\u015flar\u0131n\u0131n k\u00f6keninde ayn\u0131 zamanda teorik h\u00fck\u00fcmranl\u0131k alanlar\u0131n\u0131n tehlikeye girmi\u015f olmas\u0131n\u0131n da pay\u0131 yads\u0131namaz. \u00d6calan\u2019\u0131n yeni s\u0131n\u0131f teorisi, bizzat Marksist d\u00fcnyan\u0131n yakla\u015f\u0131k 170 y\u0131ld\u0131r zaten \u00fczerinde tart\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 bir aland\u0131r. Cengiz Baysoy\u2019un Otonom Dergisinde yay\u0131nlanan bir yaz\u0131s\u0131nda, Lenin\u2019den yap\u0131lan bir al\u0131nt\u0131da \u015fu c\u00fcmleler ge\u00e7mektedir: \u201cMarx\u2019\u0131n \u00f6\u011fretisinde \u00f6zsel olan s\u0131n\u0131f m\u00fccadelesidir. Bu \u00e7ok yaz\u0131l\u0131p s\u00f6ylenir. Fakat bu do\u011fru de\u011fildir. Ve bu yanl\u0131\u015fl\u0131kta ad\u0131m ba\u015f\u0131nda Marksizmin oport\u00fcnist\u00e7e \u00e7arp\u0131t\u0131lmas\u0131, onu burjuvazi i\u00e7in kabul edilebilir k\u0131lan tarzda tahrifi do\u011far. \u00c7\u00fcnk\u00fc s\u0131n\u0131f m\u00fccadelesi \u00f6\u011fretisi Marx taraf\u0131ndan de\u011fil aksine ondan \u00f6nce burjuvazi taraf\u0131ndan yarat\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r ve genel konu\u015fuldu\u011funda burjuvazi i\u00e7in kabul edilebilirdir. Yaln\u0131zca s\u0131n\u0131f m\u00fccadelesini kabul eden biri hen\u00fcz Marksist de\u011fildir\u2026 Marksizm\u2019i s\u0131n\u0131f m\u00fccadelesine indirgemek Marksizm\u2019i budamak demektir\u2026\u201d<\/em> Marks\u2019\u0131n kendisi bile s\u0131n\u0131f ve s\u0131n\u0131flar m\u00fccadelesi kavramlar\u0131n\u0131n kendine ait olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, aslolan\u0131n s\u0131n\u0131flar sava\u015f\u0131 de\u011fil s\u0131n\u0131fs\u0131zla\u015fma oldu\u011funu bizzat yaz\u0131lar\u0131nda belirtmi\u015ftir. Zamanla Marksist d\u00fcnyada geli\u015fen s\u0131n\u0131f ikilikleri \u00fczerinden d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnme al\u0131\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 Marksistleri s\u0131n\u0131f kavram\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnemez bir hale getirmi\u015ftir.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Milovan Djilas’\u0131n “Yeni S\u0131n\u0131f” (1957) eserinde sosyalist b\u00fcrokrasinin yeni bir s\u00f6m\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc s\u0131n\u0131fa d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015ft\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc g\u00f6stermesi, \u00d6calan’\u0131n “iktidar\u0131n proletarya veya burjuvazinin elinde olmas\u0131, egemenlik k\u00fclt\u00fcr\u00fc bak\u0131m\u0131ndan fark yaratmaz” tespitini hakl\u0131 \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131r. Sovyet deneyimi, s\u0131n\u0131f m\u00fccadelesinin devlet iktidar\u0131n\u0131 ele ge\u00e7irme stratejisinin, sadece egemen s\u0131n\u0131f\u0131 de\u011fi\u015ftirdi\u011fini, tahakk\u00fcm ili\u015fkilerini ortadan kald\u0131rmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 kan\u0131tlam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. \u00d6calan’\u0131n devleti sorunun kayna\u011f\u0131 olarak g\u00f6rmesi, bu tarihsel deneyimin ka\u00e7\u0131n\u0131lmaz teorik sonucudur. O zaman paradigmatik de\u011fi\u015fimdeki birinci ayr\u0131m\u0131<\/strong> hemen koyabiliriz. Modernist Marksizmin ekonomi-politi\u011fe yaslanmas\u0131n\u0131n arkas\u0131ndaki en b\u00fcy\u00fck dayanak \u00d6l\u00e7\u00fc Teorisidir. \u00d6l\u00e7\u00fc Teorisi, birbirinin i\u00e7inden \u00e7\u0131kan, birbirinin \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcs\u00fc olan sermaye-emek g\u00fcc\u00fc aras\u0131ndaki \u00e7eli\u015fkiye odaklan\u0131r. Oysa tam da bu \u00e7eli\u015fki teorisinin kendisinin devrim kavram\u0131ndan uzakla\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131na sebep oldu\u011fu g\u00f6r\u00fclmez. Bu, patriyarkay\u0131, aile d\u00fczleminde kalarak y\u0131kabilece\u011fini d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnmeye benzer. Dolay\u0131s\u0131 ile \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fc teorisinin Modernist Marksizmi g\u00f6t\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc yer, a\u015famac\u0131l\u0131k \u00fczerinden yeniden egemenlik kurman\u0131n paradigmas\u0131d\u0131r. Modernist Marksistlerin \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fc teorisi sonucu vard\u0131\u011f\u0131 devlet, Deleuze\u2019\u00fcn, \u201cdevletle hasta oldunuz, devletle iyile\u015feceksiniz, derler bize\u201d deyi\u015finde oldu\u011fu gibi, Marksizmin devletle\u015ftirilmesinin sonucudur.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n

Modernist Marksizmin s\u0131n\u0131f kavram\u0131n\u0131n yetersizli\u011fine vurgu yapmak Marksizm kar\u015f\u0131tl\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011fil, bizzat Marksizmin i\u00e7inden Marksizm\u2019e bir m\u00fcdahale bi\u00e7imidir<\/strong>. Modern kapitalizmdeki prekarya, kognitariat gibi yeni emek bi\u00e7imlerinin ortaya \u00e7\u0131k\u0131\u015f\u0131, klasik i\u015f\u00e7i s\u0131n\u0131f\u0131 tan\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n yetersizli\u011fini g\u00f6stermi\u015ftir. \u00d6calan’\u0131n kom\u00fcn vurgusu, s\u0131n\u0131f kimli\u011finden ziyade ya\u015fam alan\u0131 ve dayan\u0131\u015fma a\u011flar\u0131 \u00fczerinden \u00f6rg\u00fctlenmeyi \u00f6nerirken, g\u00fcn\u00fcm\u00fcz toplumsal hareketlerinin ger\u00e7ekli\u011fini daha iyi yakalamaktad\u0131r. Occupy, Indignados, Sar\u0131 Yelekliler gibi hareketlerin s\u0131n\u0131f de\u011fil, kom\u00fcn mant\u0131\u011f\u0131yla \u00f6rg\u00fctlenmesi tesad\u00fcf de\u011fildir. \u0130\u015fte buras\u0131 da paradigmatik de\u011fi\u015fimdeki ikinci ayr\u0131m\u0131 <\/strong>olu\u015fturmaktad\u0131r. E\u011fer birbirinin \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcs\u00fc i\u00e7inden bir direni\u015f \u00fcretilemiyorsa, d\u00fczlem, ikili s\u0131n\u0131f rejimi i\u00e7inden koparak, bir s\u0131n\u0131fs\u0131zla\u015ft\u0131rma prati\u011fi olmak zorundad\u0131r. Modernist Marksist d\u00fczlem, \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fc teorisinin devam\u0131 olarak sermaye-emek g\u00fcc\u00fc aras\u0131ndaki ili\u015fkiyi bir \u2018s\u0131n\u0131fla\u015ft\u0131rma\u2019 ili\u015fkisi olarak g\u00f6remez. Dolay\u0131s\u0131 ile yeni paradigmada aslolan s\u0131n\u0131fla\u015ft\u0131rma prati\u011fine kar\u015f\u0131 s\u0131n\u0131fs\u0131zla\u015ft\u0131rma prati\u011fidir. Kom\u00fcnalizm vurgusu tam da bir s\u0131n\u0131fs\u0131zla\u015ft\u0131rma \u00fcretmenin prati\u011fi olarak anla\u015f\u0131lmak zorundad\u0131r. Bu devletle\u015ftirilmi\u015f Marksizmi yeniden devrimcile\u015ftirmek i\u00e7in tek olanakt\u0131r.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Devlet-Kom\u00fcn ikileminde \u00f6ncelikle m\u00fcdahale edilmesi gereken alanlardan biri de tarihsel materyalizmin yeniden yorumlanmas\u0131d\u0131r. Pierre Clastres ve Devlete Kar\u015f\u0131 Toplum adl\u0131 \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmas\u0131nda <\/strong>ilkel topluluklar\u0131n devlet olu\u015fumuna bilin\u00e7li olarak direndiklerini g\u00f6stermi\u015ftir. \u00d6calan’\u0131n “toplum asl\u0131nda kom\u00fcnal bir olayd\u0131r” ve devletin d\u0131\u015far\u0131dan dayat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 tezi, Clastres’\u0131n bulgular\u0131yla desteklenir. Bu perspektif, Marx’\u0131n devleti s\u0131n\u0131f \u00e7at\u0131\u015fmas\u0131n\u0131n \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fc olarak g\u00f6ren yakla\u015f\u0131m\u0131ndan daha ikna edicidir; devlet toplumsal dokudaki bir sapma, bir anomali olarak belirir. Fakat Modernist Marksistlerin tarihsel materyalizm okumas\u0131 s\u0131n\u0131f i\u00e7inden \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u00e7in bu yeni teorik m\u00fcdahaleyi i\u00e7selle\u015ftirmeleri son derece zordur. Yerle\u015fik olan\u0131n donma, sabitlenme, hareketsizlik ger\u00e7e\u011finin tam kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda duran g\u00f6\u00e7ebe, ayn\u0131 zamanda kom\u00fcnal oland\u0131r. G\u00fcneydo\u011fu Asya da\u011fl\u0131k b\u00f6lgelerindeki topluluklar\u0131 ya da y\u00fczlerce y\u0131l konfederal bir tarzda ya\u015fam s\u00fcren K\u00fcrtlerin 1800\u2019lerin ba\u015f\u0131ndan itibaren Osmanl\u0131\u2019n\u0131n merkezine ba\u011flanmamak i\u00e7in g\u00f6sterdikleri direnci ve isyanlar silsilesini s\u0131n\u0131f i\u00e7inden okumak m\u00fcmk\u00fcn de\u011fildir. Bin y\u0131llard\u0131r devlet otoritesinden ka\u00e7mak i\u00e7in devrimcilerin\/g\u00f6\u00e7ebelerin geli\u015ftirdikleri stratejileri bile \u00d6calan’\u0131n kom\u00fcn-devlet antagonizmas\u0131n\u0131 ampirik olarak do\u011frular. Tarih boyunca insanlar\u0131n devletten ka\u00e7\u0131\u015f\u0131, s\u0131n\u0131f m\u00fccadelesinden daha temel bir dinamik olarak kar\u015f\u0131m\u0131za \u00e7\u0131kar. Bu nedenle Devlet-Kom\u00fcn aras\u0131ndaki sava\u015f\u0131 bir yan\u0131yla devletle\u015fmelere kar\u015f\u0131 devletsizle\u015fmeler olarak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnebiliriz. Bu hi\u00e7 de sermaye- emek g\u00fcc\u00fc aras\u0131ndaki \u00e7eli\u015fkiye benzer yeni bir \u00e7eli\u015fki teorisi olarak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fclmemelidir. Bu, ya\u015fam\u0131n \u00fcretilmesi ve yarat\u0131lmas\u0131na yani tek bir d\u00fczleme ili\u015fkin iki farkl\u0131 bak\u0131\u015f, iki farkl\u0131 i\u015flevidir. Bu nedenle do\u011frudan \u00e7eli\u015fki kavram\u0131 ile a\u00e7\u0131klanamaz. Bu da bizi paradigmatik de\u011fi\u015fimdeki \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ayr\u0131ma<\/strong> g\u00f6t\u00fcr\u00fcyor. Bu ayr\u0131m\u0131n \u00f6nemi, bir toplumsal saha analizi nas\u0131l yapabilece\u011fimize ili\u015fkin bize ipu\u00e7lar\u0131 veri. Deleuze\u2019lerin dedi\u011fi gibi, bir toplum \u00e7eli\u015fkileri ile de\u011fil, \u2018Ka\u00e7\u0131\u015f \u00c7izgileri\u2019 ile tan\u0131mlan\u0131r. O zaman Direni\u015f her zaman iktidar\u0131 \u00f6nceler. Kom\u00fcn\/devlet sava\u015f\u0131nda devletle\u015fmeye kar\u015f\u0131 direni\u015f her zaman devleti \u00f6nceler. Devlet art\u0131k Modernist gelenekteki gibi toplumun i\u00e7 geli\u015fimi ile olu\u015fan bir yap\u0131 de\u011fildir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131 ile devlet, Modernist gelene\u011fin s\u00f6yledi\u011fi gibi, kom\u00fcn\u00fcn eksiklerini tamamlamak i\u00e7in olu\u015fan, toplumun evrimsel bir \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fc ya da zorunlu s\u00fcreci de\u011fil bizzat kom\u00fcne bir m\u00fcdahaledir. Bu toplumsal saha analizi, yani direni\u015fin \u00f6nce geldi\u011fi tezi, ikili varl\u0131k\/entite \u00fczerinden d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnme rejimini de y\u0131karak, antagonizmay\u0131 da yeniden devrimci olan\u0131n kalbine yerle\u015ftirir. Bu ikilemden \u00e7\u0131karak antagonizma \u00fczerinden d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnmenin yeni olana\u011f\u0131, Marksizmin devletle\u015ftirilmesine kar\u015f\u0131 devrimcile\u015ftirilmesinin yeg\u00e2ne olana\u011f\u0131d\u0131r. Art\u0131k T\u00fcrkiyeli Modernistler de bunun i\u00e7inde konumlanacaklard\u0131r. Ya devletle\u015ftirilmi\u015f Marksizmin i\u00e7inden gittik\u00e7e sa\u011fc\u0131la\u015facak ya da devrimcile\u015fmi\u015f bir Marksizmin i\u00e7inde sol, ya\u015fam\u0131 \u00f6rg\u00fctlemenin ger\u00e7ek deneyinin politik prati\u011fini \u00fcreteceklerdir.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kom\u00fcnalist okumalar\u0131n \u00e7o\u011fu, hiyerar\u015finin s\u0131n\u0131ftan \u00f6nce geldi\u011fini ve t\u00fcm tahakk\u00fcm bi\u00e7imlerinin kayna\u011f\u0131 oldu\u011funa dair zengin bir k\u00fclliyat b\u0131rakm\u0131\u015flard\u0131r. Kald\u0131 ki Otonomist gelene\u011fin, \u201cs\u0131n\u0131f m\u00fccadelesi s\u0131n\u0131f\u0131 \u00f6nceler\u201d tezini de bu katk\u0131ya eklemek gerekir. Tam da yukar\u0131da s\u00f6yledi\u011fimiz, direni\u015fin iktidar\u0131 \u00f6nceledi\u011fi tezinin devam\u0131 olan bu bak\u0131\u015f sayesinde devrim fikri canl\u0131 ve dinamik bir devrimci-olu\u015fa ba\u011flan\u0131r. T\u00fcm bu arg\u00fcmanlar, \u00d6calan’\u0131n devlet ele\u015ftirisinin teorik zeminini g\u00fc\u00e7lendirir. Bookchin’e g\u00f6re s\u0131n\u0131f, hiyerar\u015finin bir t\u00fcrevi oldu\u011fundan, s\u0131n\u0131f m\u00fccadelesi tahakk\u00fcm\u00fcn k\u00f6kenine inemez. \u00d6calan’\u0131n kom\u00fcn vurgusu, bu daha derin soruna yan\u0131t aray\u0131\u015f\u0131d\u0131r. Her biri devlete kar\u015f\u0131 ba\u015fka bir devleti \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcm olarak \u00f6ng\u00f6ren ulusal kurtulu\u015f hareketlerinin ba\u015far\u0131s\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 tabandan \u00f6rg\u00fctlenen konfederal yap\u0131lar\u0131yla Rojava deneyimi, bug\u00fcn bu modelin sadece teorik de\u011fil, pratik olarak da uygulanabilir oldu\u011funu kan\u0131tlam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u00d6zg\u00fcrl\u00fck Hareketinin kom\u00fcn anlay\u0131\u015f\u0131nda sorunun s\u0131n\u0131flar de\u011fil heteronomi (ba\u015fkas\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan y\u00f6netilme) ve \u00f6zerklik talebi aras\u0131nda oldu\u011fu tezinde Kurdistan ve Ortado\u011fu\u2019daki \u00e7at\u0131\u015fk\u0131\/\u00e7at\u0131\u015fma dinamikleriyle son derece uyumludur. Devlet, heteronominin kurumsalla\u015fm\u0131\u015f bi\u00e7imiyken, kom\u00fcn \u00f6zerk toplumun ifadesidir. Bu okuma, \u00d6calan’\u0131n paradigma de\u011fi\u015fimini sadece K\u00fcrt hareketinin takti\u011fi de\u011fil, evrensel bir \u00f6zg\u00fcrle\u015fme projesi olarak konumland\u0131r\u0131r. K\u00d6H\u2019\u00fcn \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fck paradigmas\u0131n\u0131n tam da Marksizm\u2019e bu m\u00fcdahalesiyle olu\u015fan \u00f6zg\u00fcrle\u015fme d\u00fczleminin sadece K\u00fcrtlere ya da Ortado\u011fu\u2019ya de\u011fil, t\u00fcm d\u00fcnya halklar\u0131na arma\u011fan\u0131 oldu\u011funu s\u00f6ylememizin nedeni de budur.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Modernist Marksizm, kapitalizmin yakla\u015f\u0131k 600 y\u0131ll\u0131k kurucu dinami\u011fini g\u00f6z ard\u0131 ederek kapitalizmi analiz eder ve bu analizi ekonomi politi\u011fin ele\u015ftirisinin temel teorik\/pratik dayana\u011f\u0131 yapar. Demokratik Modernite ise kapitalizmi ba\u015fat denilen \u00e7eli\u015fki \u00fczerinden de\u011fil kapitalizmi b\u00fct\u00fcn kurucu dinamikleriyle birlikte analiz ederek \u2018tarihin ilk s\u00f6m\u00fcrgesi kad\u0131nd\u0131r\u2019 tezini Kom\u00fcnalist fikriyat\u0131n temeli olarak belirler. S\u0131n\u0131f kavram\u0131n\u0131n art\u0131k bir durumu, bir varl\u0131\u011f\u0131, bir toplulu\u011fu ifade etmedi\u011fini ve s\u0131n\u0131f\u0131 kuran \u015feyin s\u0131n\u0131f\u0131n kendisi de\u011fil s\u0131n\u0131flar m\u00fccadelesi oldu\u011fundan hareket eder; t\u0131pk\u0131 K\u00fcrtl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc kuran \u015feyin soyut bir halk kavram\u0131 de\u011fil biyopolitik alan\u0131n t\u00fcm\u00fcn\u00fc bir in\u015fa ve direni\u015f alan\u0131na d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcren yeni bir K\u00fcrtl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn kurucu g\u00fcc\u00fc oldu\u011fu gibi. Paradigman\u0131n modernist yakla\u015f\u0131mlardan bariz bi\u00e7imde ayr\u0131lan y\u00f6n\u00fc \u015fudur: Birincisi s\u0131n\u0131f, s\u0131n\u0131f m\u00fccadelesinden \u00f6nce gelmez, varl\u0131k politikay\u0131 de\u011fil, politika varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00f6nceler; varl\u0131k direni\u015ften \u00f6nce de\u011fil direni\u015f varl\u0131ktan \u00f6nce gelir.  \u00d6zg\u00fcrl\u00fck hareketi iktisadi kategorilerle de\u011fil s\u00f6m\u00fcrgecilik ile kapitalist modernitenin can damarlar\u0131na sald\u0131r\u0131 hatlar\u0131 kurarak m\u00fccadele i\u00e7inde in\u015fa edilen bir s\u0131n\u0131fs\u0131zla\u015fma yaratmay\u0131 esas al\u0131r.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bununla birlikte \u00d6calan hi\u00e7bir metninde s\u0131n\u0131f\u0131n do\u011fu\u015funu ve ba\u011flay\u0131c\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ret etmemi\u015ftir. Temel itiraz\u0131 tarihin s\u0131n\u0131flar sava\u015f\u0131yla ba\u015flad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve b\u00fct\u00fcn toplumsal ili\u015fkinin bu \u00e7at\u0131\u015fk\u0131 \u00fczerinden \u015fekillendi\u011fi tezine kar\u015f\u0131d\u0131r. Tarih s\u0131n\u0131f\u0131n do\u011fu\u015fuyla de\u011fil, s\u0131n\u0131ftan \u00f6nce ortaya \u00e7\u0131km\u0131\u015f olan ve s\u0131n\u0131flar\u0131n karakterini belirleyen erkek egemen toplumsalla\u015fman\u0131n kad\u0131n merkezli toplumsalla\u015fmay\u0131 belli bir cins k\u0131r\u0131m\u0131 yoluyla tasfiye etmesiyle ba\u015flat\u0131l\u0131r. O y\u00fczden \u2018ilk s\u00f6m\u00fcrge kad\u0131nd\u0131r\u2019 tezi bu d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnsel hatt\u0131n ana omurgas\u0131n\u0131 olu\u015fturur. \u00c7\u00fcnk\u00fc s\u0131n\u0131fla\u015fmay\u0131 sadece ekonomik s\u0131n\u0131flara indirgedi\u011fimizde toplumsal ili\u015fkilerin t\u00fcm\u00fcnde s\u0131n\u0131fla\u015ft\u0131rman\u0131n nas\u0131l \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve toplumsal ili\u015fkinin k\u0131lcallar\u0131na kadar s\u0131zabilen s\u00f6m\u00fcr\u00fc ve iktidar ili\u015fkisini asla g\u00f6remeyiz. Bu ele\u015ftiri, Cengiz Baysoy\u2019un deyimiyle selefile\u015ftirilmi\u015f Marx\u2019\u0131n yeniden devrimcile\u015ftirilmesidir. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Post Marksistlerin, kent hakk\u0131 m\u00fccadelesinin s\u0131n\u0131f m\u00fccadelesinin yeni bi\u00e7imi oldu\u011funa dair iddialar\u0131 ilk bak\u0131\u015fta \u00d6calan\u2019\u0131n kom\u00fcn vurgusunu s\u0131n\u0131f analizine do\u011fru b\u00fcker gibi g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcr. Ancak bu iddian\u0131n sahipleri bile bu m\u00fccadelelerin klasik i\u015f\u00e7i s\u0131n\u0131f\u0131 \u00f6rg\u00fctlenmesinden farkl\u0131, mekansal ve kom\u00fcnal bir karaktere sahip oldu\u011funu kabul eder. Bu a\u00e7\u0131dan \u00d6calan’\u0131n kom\u00fcn paradigmas\u0131, Post Marksistlerin kent hakk\u0131 kavram\u0131n\u0131 daha tutarl\u0131 bir teorik \u00e7er\u00e7eveye oturtur. Bu paradigma ile kent art\u0131k verili bak\u0131\u015f a\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131n\u0131n toplam\u0131 olmaktan da \u00e7\u0131kar, bak\u0131\u015f a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131 \u00fcretiminin\/yarat\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n p\u00fcr\u00fczs\u00fcz bir mek\u00e2n ve zaman \u00f6rg\u00fctlenmesi olarak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcl\u00fcr. Bu da bizi paradigmatik de\u011fi\u015fimdeki d\u00f6rd\u00fcnc\u00fc ayr\u0131ma<\/strong> g\u00f6t\u00fcr\u00fcr. Devrimci m\u00fccadeleler, verili bak\u0131\u015f i\u00e7inde bir bak\u0131\u015f de\u011fildir. Yeni olan\u0131n \u00fcretim ve yarat\u0131m\u0131 sorunudur. Bu \u00fcretim ve yarat\u0131m\u0131n devrimci dinamik i\u00e7indeki \u00f6nemi, d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncenin, bir erteleme ile beklentiye indirgenmeden \u2018\u015eimdi ve Burada\u2019 \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmas\u0131d\u0131r. \u00d6b\u00fcr t\u00fcrl\u00fcs\u00fc Nietzsche\u2019nin s\u00f6z etti\u011fi gelece\u011fe havale edilmi\u015f umudun i\u015fkenceye ve \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fclmeye d\u00f6nm\u00fc\u015f halidir. Tam da bu nedenle antagonizmam\u0131z\u0131n \u015fimdi ve burada direni\u015fe i\u00e7kin hale gelmesi sonucu, politik olan\u0131, verili bir bak\u0131\u015ftan de\u011fil bir \u00fcretim\/yarat\u0131m kavram\u0131n\u0131n i\u00e7inden d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnmeye ba\u015fl\u0131yoruz. K\u00fcrt \u00d6zg\u00fcrl\u00fck Hareketinin bu hamlesi i\u015fte bu y\u00fczden bu topraklarda \u201chen\u00fcz d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnmeyenler\u201d i\u00e7in bir d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnmeye davettir. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Modernist Marksistler, kapitalizm var olduk\u00e7a s\u0131n\u0131flar\u0131n da var olaca\u011f\u0131 tezini teorik kalk\u0131\u015f noktalar\u0131 yaparak kom\u00fcn-devlet \u00e7at\u0131\u015fk\u0131s\u0131n\u0131n s\u0131n\u0131f \u00e7at\u0131\u015fmas\u0131n\u0131 gizledi\u011fini iddia edebilirler. Ancak \u00d6calan s\u0131n\u0131flar\u0131n varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ink\u00e2r etmez; ama bu ili\u015fkiyi yerle bir etmek ister. S\u0131n\u0131f art\u0131k bir s\u0131n\u0131fla\u015ft\u0131rma ili\u015fkisidir. \u0130\u015fte bu y\u00fczden kom\u00fcnler i\u00e7inde s\u0131n\u0131fla\u015ft\u0131rma ili\u015fkisini engelleyecek mekanizmalar, tam da kom\u00fcnal \u00f6rg\u00fctlenmenin otonom karakteri sayesinde geli\u015ftirilir. Bu otonom karakter, bizi paradigmatik de\u011fi\u015fimdeki be\u015finci ayr\u0131ma<\/strong> g\u00f6t\u00fcr\u00fcr. Modernist Marksizmin ekonomi-politik ve \u00e7eli\u015fki \u00fczerinden kurdu\u011fu ve sermaye ve devletle i\u00e7sel bir ili\u015fki oturan bu d\u00fczleme kar\u015f\u0131, \u2018Etik-Politik D\u00fczleme\u2019 ge\u00e7ilmek zorundad\u0131r. Etik-politik d\u00fczlemin s\u0131n\u0131fla\u015ft\u0131rma ili\u015fkisini engellemek i\u00e7in ara\u00e7lar\u0131 vard\u0131r. Bu ara\u00e7 \u201c\u00f6z savunmad\u0131r.\u201d Demokratik Modernite tezi en ba\u015f\u0131ndan beri Marksizmin en ba\u015fat tart\u0131\u015fma konusu olan ekonomik ili\u015fki ile toplumsal ili\u015fki aras\u0131ndaki diyalekti\u011fi, ayr\u0131 bir teorik tart\u0131\u015fma eksenine \u00e7ekerek kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131kl\u0131 belirleme ve etkile\u015fimden ziyade belirlenimi direni\u015fin hakikati olarak in\u015fa etmenin m\u00fccadelesini esas alm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Yani hakikati belirlemekten ziyade belirlemenin kendisini in\u015fa etmek i\u00e7in direnir. Tam da bu noktada kapitalist moderniteye kar\u015f\u0131 demokratik modernite tezini s\u00f6m\u00fcrgele\u015ftirme arzusunun tam kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda konumland\u0131r\u0131r. \u00c7\u00fcnk\u00fc demokratik modernite hi\u00e7bir zaman belirlemez, belirlenimi in\u015fa eder, g\u00f6stermez, g\u00f6sterge \u00fcretir. Toplumsal ili\u015fkiyi salt ekonomik olan\u0131n alt\u0131na g\u00f6men indirgemeci tarz\u0131 ele\u015ftirerek ili\u015fkiselli\u011fi savunur. Bu y\u00f6n\u00fcyle asl\u0131nda ekonomi\/politik indirgemecili\u011fe kar\u015f\u0131 etik\/politik bir itiraz \u00fcretir. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u00d6calan’\u0131n teorik d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f\u00fcm\u00fcn\u00fc, 21. y\u00fczy\u0131lda sol siyasetin kar\u015f\u0131la\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00e7\u0131kmazlara yan\u0131t arama \u00e7abas\u0131ndan ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z ele almak m\u00fcmk\u00fcn de\u011fildir. \u2018Ya Sosyalizm Ya Barbarl\u0131k\u2019 slogan\u0131 kendinden menkul bir de\u011fer olarak b\u00fct\u00fcn m\u00fccadele tarihine sabitlenmi\u015ftir. Ama as\u0131l can al\u0131c\u0131 noktas\u0131 \u015fudur: Y\u00fczlerce y\u0131ld\u0131r hem pratik hem de teorik anlamda b\u00fcy\u00fck \u00e7\u0131kmazlarla bo\u011fu\u015fan modernist sosyalizme kar\u015f\u0131 nas\u0131l bir sosyalizm? \u00d6calan\u2019\u0131n pe\u015fine d\u00fc\u015ft\u00fc\u011f\u00fc as\u0131l soru budur! \u00c7\u00fcnk\u00fc s\u0131n\u0131f\u0131n d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnemeyen kaba s\u0131n\u0131f indirgemecili\u011fi, sosyalist hareketleri ya parlamenter reformizme ya da otoriter devlet\u00e7ili\u011fe mahk\u00fbm etmi\u015ftir. Kom\u00fcn-devlet paradigmas\u0131, bu iki \u00e7\u0131kmaz aras\u0131nda \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc bir yol a\u00e7ar: Ne devlet iktidar\u0131n\u0131 ele ge\u00e7irmek ne de kapitalist devletle uzla\u015fmak, devlete kar\u015f\u0131 otonom toplumsal alanlar\u0131 geni\u015fletmek temel strateji olarak ortaya \u00e7\u0131kar. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla bu paradigma de\u011fi\u015fimi Marksizm\u2019den bir \u00e7\u0131k\u0131\u015f de\u011fil Marksizmin 21. Y\u00fczy\u0131ldaki b\u00fcy\u00fck teorik\/pratik \u00e7\u0131kmazlar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 bir \u00e7\u0131k\u0131\u015f arama \u00e7abas\u0131d\u0131r. \u00d6calan, bu hamlesiyle Marksist teoriyi Hobbes \u2019ten Marksizm \u00e7\u0131karan bir devlet\u00e7i solun ve sol Schimit\u00e7ilerin elinden kurtarmaya \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmaktad\u0131r. \u00c7\u00fcnk\u00fc politik teori tarihi temelde \u00fc\u00e7 alan \u00fczerinden \u00e7al\u0131\u015fm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bunlar egemenlik, toplumsal ili\u015fkiler ve ekonomi politiktir. Marks, toplumsal ili\u015fkilerden hareket ederek ekonomi politi\u011fin ve egemenlik ili\u015fkisinin yani devletin bir ele\u015ftirisini ortaya koyar. Marks i\u00e7in devlet, bir s\u0131n\u0131f\u0131n ba\u015fka s\u0131n\u0131flar taraf\u0131ndan ezilmesini me\u015frula\u015ft\u0131ran bir ayg\u0131tt\u0131r. Tam da bu noktada proletarya devlete el koyan de\u011fil devleti tamam\u0131yla ortadan kald\u0131ran tarihsel\/toplumsal bir rol bi\u00e7mi\u015ftir. \u00d6zg\u00fcr ve halk\u00e7\u0131 bir devletten s\u00f6z  etmek sa\u00e7mal\u0131kt\u0131r s\u00f6z\u00fc bir bizzat Marks\u2019a aittir ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn oldu\u011fu yerde devletin, devletin oldu\u011fu yerde \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 en iyi bilenler bizzat Marksistlerdir! <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nas\u0131l ki Marx, Hegel’in diyalekti\u011fini “ayaklar\u0131 \u00fczerine oturttu” ise, \u00d6calan da Marksist teoriyi devlet feti\u015fizminden kurtararak \u00f6zg\u00fcrle\u015ftirici \u00f6z\u00fcne d\u00f6nd\u00fcrmeyi hedefler. Marks, s\u0131n\u0131f kavram\u0131na ve s\u0131n\u0131flar m\u00fccadelesi ifadesine devrimci m\u00fcdahalede bulunur ve s\u0131n\u0131f kavram\u0131n\u0131 tamam\u0131yla ortadan kald\u0131racak s\u0131n\u0131fs\u0131z bir toplumun devrimci teorisini ortaya koymaya \u00e7al\u0131\u015f\u0131r. Lenin\u2019in deyimiyle devrimcileri devrimci yapan \u015fey s\u0131n\u0131fa g\u00f6m\u00fcl\u00fcp kalmak de\u011fil b\u00fct\u00fcn s\u0131n\u0131flar\u0131n ortadan kalkt\u0131\u011f\u0131 s\u0131n\u0131fs\u0131z bir topluma varma d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesini benimsemeleridir. \u00d6calan\u2019\u0131n devlet ve kom\u00fcn konusundaki perspektif metninde en b\u00fcy\u00fck dayana\u011f\u0131 bizzat Marks ve Lenin\u2019dir! \u00d6calan, iktidar ve hegemonya sorununda merkezile\u015fen bir parti devletinden ziyade yerele yay\u0131lm\u0131\u015f ve kolektifler \u00fczerinden \u00f6rg\u00fctlenmi\u015f bir halk meclisleri ger\u00e7e\u011fine g\u00f6nderme yapar. Bunu yatay a\u011flar \u015feklinde \u00f6rg\u00fctlenmi\u015f kom\u00fcnler olarak form\u00fclle\u015ftirir. Merkezile\u015fmi\u015f bir savunma bi\u00e7iminden ziyade kendi \u00f6z savunma g\u00fc\u00e7lerini \u00f6rg\u00fctlemi\u015f yeni bir toplumsall\u0131\u011f\u0131 esas al\u0131r. Bu \u00f6z savunmay\u0131 cinsiyet, dil, s\u0131n\u0131f, k\u00fclt\u00fcr, ideoloji, benlik gibi b\u00fct\u00fcn savunma alanlar\u0131na yayar. \u00c7\u00fcnk\u00fc modernist gelenek, politik olan\u0131 iktidar perspektifi ile d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcr, Politika her zaman iktidarla diyalektik bir ili\u015fki i\u00e7ine hapsolmu\u015ftur. Oysa \u00f6z savunma anlay\u0131\u015f\u0131 politik olan\u0131 ya\u015fam\u0131n t\u00fcm mikro alanlar\u0131na yayar. \u00d6zsavunma bedenlerin disiplin ya da denetim alt\u0131na al\u0131nmas\u0131n\u0131 esas alan biyopolitikaya kar\u015f\u0131 direni\u015fin biyopolitikas\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

B\u00fct\u00fcn bu a\u00e7\u0131klamalar \u0131\u015f\u0131\u011f\u0131nda ve bu yaz\u0131n\u0131n s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131 i\u00e7inde paradigmatik de\u011fi\u015fime ili\u015fkin 5 ba\u015fl\u0131k a\u00e7maya \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131k. A\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7as\u0131 bu ba\u015fl\u0131klar \u00e7o\u011falt\u0131labilir olsa da bu ba\u015fl\u0131klar her birine ili\u015fkin ayr\u0131nt\u0131l\u0131 \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalar yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi de ka\u00e7\u0131n\u0131lmazd\u0131r. \u00d6calan’\u0131n kom\u00fcn paradigmas\u0131, sosyalist hareketin gelece\u011fi i\u00e7in sosyalizmden bir kopu\u015f de\u011fil, sosyalizmin yeni bir stratejik hamle ile g\u00fcncellenmesi olarak de\u011ferlendirilmelidir. Bu perspektif, hem tarihsel deneyimin derslerini i\u00e7erir hem de yeni m\u00fccadele bi\u00e7imlerine teorik zemin ve m\u00fccadele\/in\u015fa krokileri haz\u0131rlar. Marksist ortodoksinin bu yeni perspektife kar\u015f\u0131 direnci anla\u015f\u0131l\u0131r olsa da, teorinin canl\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 dogmalara sadakatten de\u011fil, ger\u00e7eklikle y\u00fczle\u015fme cesaretinden gelir. Bu noktada hi\u00e7bir sloganik ve temelsiz tuza\u011fa gelmeden \u015funu a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a s\u00f6yleyebiliriz: <\/em>Tarih dedi\u011fimiz \u015fey s\u0131n\u0131flar sava\u015f\u0131 de\u011fil, s\u0131n\u0131fla\u015ft\u0131rmaya kar\u015f\u0131 s\u0131n\u0131fs\u0131zla\u015fma m\u00fccadelesidir. Kom\u00fcn, s\u0131n\u0131fs\u0131zla\u015fman\u0131n politik prati\u011finin etik-politik g\u00fcc\u00fcd\u00fcr. Devlete kar\u015f\u0131 devlet, s\u0131n\u0131fa kar\u015f\u0131 devlet ikiliklerinin \u00e7ok \u00f6tesinde yepyeni bir hakikat s\u00fcrekli bize g\u00f6z k\u0131rpmaya devam etmektedir: devlete kar\u015f\u0131 s\u0131n\u0131fla ya da devlete kar\u015f\u0131 yeni bir devletle\u015fme prati\u011fiyle kar\u015f\u0131 konulamaz; devlete kar\u015f\u0131 kom\u00fcn antagonizmas\u0131, devrimin yeniden devrimcile\u015fmesinde \u00f6nemli bir ad\u0131md\u0131r. B\u00fct\u00fcn toplumsal ili\u015fkilerin kom\u00fcnle\u015ftirilmesi, ya\u015fam\u0131 s\u0131n\u0131fs\u0131zla\u015ft\u0131ran demokratik kom\u00fcnalizmin politik prati\u011finin di\u011fer bir ifadesidir. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u00d6zetle, Modernist Marksizmin, tarihsel materyalizm ve b\u00fct\u00fcnc\u00fcl toplum anlay\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131n esas\u0131 olan, \u00f6zne (proletarya) ile strateji (proletaryan\u0131n iktidar\u0131 ele ge\u00e7irmesi) olarak belirlenen ikili aras\u0131ndaki ba\u011f\u0131nt\u0131 kopmu\u015ftur. Bu noktada \u00d6calan\u2019\u0131n Marksizm\u2019i bir iktidar parametresini ve \u00e7oklu yeniden \u00fcretim d\u00fczlemlerini geni\u015fleten bir \u00e7izgiden kopu\u015f de\u011fil olsa olsa s\u0131n\u0131r\u0131 germe ve daha da geni\u015fletme \u00e7abas\u0131d\u0131r. Devrim, iktidar\u0131n el de\u011fi\u015ftirmesi de\u011fil ak\u0131\u015fkanla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131, devletins\u00f6n\u00fcmlenmesi de\u011fil devletin her taraf\u0131nda gedikler\/ka\u00e7\u0131\u015f \u00e7izgileri olu\u015fturup devrimci-olu\u015flar\u0131 \u00e7o\u011faltmakt\u0131r.  S\u0131n\u0131f antagonizmas\u0131, kom\u00fcn-devlet \u00f6l\u00e7e\u011finde teknik ve kurumsal olarak ters y\u00fcz edilmeden yeni devrimci stratejilerin m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 tarih bize defalarca g\u00f6stermi\u015ftir. \u00c7\u00fcnk\u00fc s\u00f6m\u00fcr\u00fc sadece \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fc teorisi i\u00e7inden okunan art\u0131-de\u011fer ile de\u011fil biyopolitik ya\u015fam\u0131n t\u00fcm k\u0131lcal damarlar\u0131nda kendini duyuran iktidar yo\u011funla\u015fmalar\u0131yla \u00e7al\u0131\u015f\u0131r. Bu bak\u0131\u015f, Marksizmin \u00e7ekirde\u011fini koruyup stratejik eksenini geni\u015fletme giri\u015fimi olarak okunmal\u0131d\u0131r. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

B\u00fct\u00fcn bu nedenlerle bizim yapmaya \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131m\u0131z, Modernistlerin yukar\u0131da bu 5 ayr\u0131m i\u00e7inde yazd\u0131\u011f\u0131m\u0131z paradigma fark\u0131n\u0131 tart\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131n\u0131 d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnceye davete d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcrmektir. (1) \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fc teorisinden \u00e7\u0131k\u0131\u015f\u0131, (2) s\u0131n\u0131fla\u015ft\u0131rmaya kar\u015f\u0131 s\u0131n\u0131fs\u0131zla\u015ft\u0131rma prati\u011fini, (3) bir toplumsal saha analizinde ka\u00e7\u0131\u015f \u00e7izgilerinin, yani direni\u015fin \u00e7eli\u015fkiyi \u00f6nceledi\u011fi, (4) devrimci m\u00fccadelelerin verili bir bak\u0131\u015fa yerle\u015filerek de\u011fil \u00fcretim\/yarat\u0131m kavramlar\u0131 ile d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnmeyi zorunlu k\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 PERSPEKT\u0130V\u0130ZM kavram\u0131n\u0131n \u015fimdinin ontolojisi oldu\u011fu, (5) ve son olarak ekonomi-politi\u011fe kar\u015f\u0131 etik-politik bir d\u00fczleme ge\u00e7ilmesi gerekti\u011fi \u015feklinde \u00f6zetleyebilece\u011fimiz bu 5 fark, iktidar\u0131n\/devletin biyo-politikas\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 direni\u015fin biyopolitikas\u0131n\u0131n da olana\u011f\u0131n\u0131 a\u00e7acakt\u0131r.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u00c7ok uzun on y\u0131llar boyunca devlet eksenli, sermaye birikim rejimi eksenli d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnen Modernist Marksistler i\u00e7in bunun zorlu\u011fu ortada olsa da K\u00fcrt \u00d6zg\u00fcrl\u00fck Hareketinin silah b\u0131rakmaya indirgenemeyecek olan hamlesi sonras\u0131, Marksizm yeniden bir olanak olarak d\u00fcnya sahnesine \u00e7\u0131kacakt\u0131r.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u2018Tarih s\u0131n\u0131flar sava\u015f\u0131 de\u011fil, s\u0131n\u0131fla\u015ft\u0131rmaya kar\u015f\u0131 s\u0131n\u0131fs\u0131zla\u015fma m\u00fccadelesidir. Kom\u00fcn s\u0131n\u0131fs\u0131zla\u015fma politik prati\u011finin etik-politik g\u00fcc\u00fcd\u00fcr. \u201cDevlete kar\u015f\u0131 kom\u00fcn\u201d, g\u00fcn\u00fcm\u00fczde devrimin yeniden devrimcile\u015ftirilmesinde \u00f6nemli bir soyutlamad\u0131r. B\u00fct\u00fcn toplumsal ili\u015fkilerin kom\u00fcnle\u015ftirilmesi prati\u011fi, ya\u015fam\u0131 s\u0131n\u0131fs\u0131zla\u015ft\u0131ran i\u00e7kin demokrasi kom\u00fcnalizmdir.\u2019 Cengiz Baysoy (Otonom Dergisi) Say\u0131n \u00d6calan’\u0131n Marksizmin ament\u00fcs\u00fc olarak kabul edilen \u2018tarihin devindirici g\u00fcc\u00fc ve mutlak belirleyeni s\u0131n\u0131f sava\u015f\u0131m\u0131d\u0131r yerine, devlete kar\u015f\u0131 kom\u00fcn \u00e7at\u0131\u015fk\u0131s\u0131n\u0131 ikame ettik” \u00f6nermesi, sadece 20. y\u00fczy\u0131l sosyalist deneyimlerinin ba\u015far\u0131s\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lan zorunlu bir teorik sonu\u00e7 de\u011fil ayn\u0131 zamanda s\u0131n\u0131f\u0131 merkeze alan Modernist Marksist felsefi\/politik yakla\u015f\u0131ma kar\u015f\u0131 bir itiraz olarak okunmal\u0131d\u0131r. Marx’\u0131n \u2018tarih s\u0131n\u0131f m\u00fccadeleleri tarihidir\u2019 aksiyomu, reel sosyalizm prati\u011finde kendini do\u011frulayamam\u0131\u015f, aksine yeni tahakk\u00fcm bi\u00e7imleri \u00fcretmi\u015ftir. Bu ba\u011flamda \u00d6calan’\u0131n teorik hamlesi, dogmatik Marksizme tak\u0131l\u0131p kalmak yerine, \u00f6zg\u00fcrle\u015fme m\u00fccadelesinin yeni kavramsal ara\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131 geli\u015ftirme cesareti olarak de\u011ferlendirilebilir. Bu, olu\u015fturulacak yeni kavramsal ara\u00e7lar\u0131n, do\u011frudan \u00f6zg\u00fcrle\u015fme d\u00fczleminde \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmas\u0131 ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrle\u015fmenin yeni \u00f6znelliklerini \u00fcretmeye d\u00f6n\u00fck olmas\u0131 son derece \u00f6nemlidir. \u00c7\u00fcnk\u00fc Modernist Marksizm\u2019e ele\u015ftirimiz, a\u015fa\u011f\u0131da a\u00e7\u0131klayaca\u011f\u0131m\u0131z gibi devrim\/devrimcilik kavram\u0131ndan gittik\u00e7e uzakla\u015fmas\u0131ndan kaynaklanmaktad\u0131r. \u0130\u015fte bu yaz\u0131 ile amac\u0131m\u0131z, bu uzakla\u015fman\u0131n salt reel sosyalizm deneyiminin sorunlar\u0131ndan kaynaklanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesinden hareketle, teorik bir m\u00fcdahalenin de ka\u00e7\u0131n\u0131lmaz oldu\u011funa ili\u015fkin bir \u00e7er\u00e7eve olu\u015fturmakt\u0131r.   Bu nedenle s\u0131n\u0131f indirgemecili\u011finin pratik iflas\u0131 olan Sovyet Deneyimi ba\u015fta olmak \u00fczere Reel Sosyalist d\u00fcnyan\u0131n b\u00fcy\u00fck devrimci at\u0131l\u0131m\u0131na ra\u011fmen hi\u00e7bir \u00f6znellik yaratamam\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131n\u0131n k\u00f6kenlerini bizzat Marksizmin s\u0131n\u0131f ve\/veya de\u011fer teorisinin i\u00e7inde aramak gerekir. T\u00fcrkiye Sol hareketinin ideolojik noterlik makam\u0131 gibi \u00e7al\u0131\u015fan belli kesimlerinin bu \u2018Marksizmin reddidir; Marksizmin d\u0131\u015f\u0131na \u00e7\u0131kmad\u0131r\u2019 \u00e7\u0131k\u0131\u015flar\u0131n\u0131n k\u00f6keninde ayn\u0131 zamanda teorik h\u00fck\u00fcmranl\u0131k alanlar\u0131n\u0131n tehlikeye girmi\u015f olmas\u0131n\u0131n da pay\u0131 yads\u0131namaz. \u00d6calan\u2019\u0131n yeni s\u0131n\u0131f teorisi, bizzat Marksist d\u00fcnyan\u0131n yakla\u015f\u0131k 170 y\u0131ld\u0131r zaten \u00fczerinde tart\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 bir aland\u0131r. Cengiz Baysoy\u2019un Otonom Dergisinde yay\u0131nlanan bir yaz\u0131s\u0131nda, Lenin\u2019den yap\u0131lan bir al\u0131nt\u0131da \u015fu c\u00fcmleler ge\u00e7mektedir: \u201cMarx\u2019\u0131n \u00f6\u011fretisinde \u00f6zsel olan s\u0131n\u0131f m\u00fccadelesidir. Bu \u00e7ok yaz\u0131l\u0131p s\u00f6ylenir. Fakat bu do\u011fru de\u011fildir. Ve bu yanl\u0131\u015fl\u0131kta ad\u0131m ba\u015f\u0131nda Marksizmin oport\u00fcnist\u00e7e \u00e7arp\u0131t\u0131lmas\u0131, onu burjuvazi i\u00e7in kabul edilebilir k\u0131lan tarzda tahrifi do\u011far. \u00c7\u00fcnk\u00fc s\u0131n\u0131f m\u00fccadelesi \u00f6\u011fretisi Marx taraf\u0131ndan de\u011fil aksine ondan \u00f6nce burjuvazi taraf\u0131ndan yarat\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r ve genel konu\u015fuldu\u011funda burjuvazi i\u00e7in kabul edilebilirdir. Yaln\u0131zca s\u0131n\u0131f m\u00fccadelesini kabul eden biri hen\u00fcz Marksist de\u011fildir\u2026 Marksizm\u2019i s\u0131n\u0131f m\u00fccadelesine indirgemek Marksizm\u2019i budamak demektir\u2026\u201d Marks\u2019\u0131n kendisi bile s\u0131n\u0131f ve s\u0131n\u0131flar m\u00fccadelesi kavramlar\u0131n\u0131n kendine ait olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, aslolan\u0131n s\u0131n\u0131flar sava\u015f\u0131 de\u011fil s\u0131n\u0131fs\u0131zla\u015fma oldu\u011funu bizzat yaz\u0131lar\u0131nda belirtmi\u015ftir. Zamanla Marksist d\u00fcnyada geli\u015fen s\u0131n\u0131f ikilikleri \u00fczerinden d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnme al\u0131\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 Marksistleri s\u0131n\u0131f kavram\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnemez bir hale getirmi\u015ftir.   Milovan Djilas’\u0131n “Yeni S\u0131n\u0131f” (1957) eserinde sosyalist b\u00fcrokrasinin yeni bir s\u00f6m\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc s\u0131n\u0131fa d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015ft\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc g\u00f6stermesi, \u00d6calan’\u0131n “iktidar\u0131n proletarya veya burjuvazinin elinde olmas\u0131, egemenlik k\u00fclt\u00fcr\u00fc bak\u0131m\u0131ndan fark yaratmaz” tespitini hakl\u0131 \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131r. Sovyet deneyimi, s\u0131n\u0131f m\u00fccadelesinin devlet iktidar\u0131n\u0131 ele ge\u00e7irme stratejisinin, sadece egemen s\u0131n\u0131f\u0131 de\u011fi\u015ftirdi\u011fini, tahakk\u00fcm ili\u015fkilerini ortadan kald\u0131rmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 kan\u0131tlam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. \u00d6calan’\u0131n devleti sorunun kayna\u011f\u0131 olarak g\u00f6rmesi, bu tarihsel deneyimin ka\u00e7\u0131n\u0131lmaz teorik sonucudur. O zaman paradigmatik de\u011fi\u015fimdeki birinci ayr\u0131m\u0131 hemen koyabiliriz. Modernist Marksizmin ekonomi-politi\u011fe yaslanmas\u0131n\u0131n arkas\u0131ndaki en b\u00fcy\u00fck dayanak \u00d6l\u00e7\u00fc Teorisidir. \u00d6l\u00e7\u00fc Teorisi, birbirinin i\u00e7inden \u00e7\u0131kan, birbirinin \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcs\u00fc olan sermaye-emek g\u00fcc\u00fc aras\u0131ndaki \u00e7eli\u015fkiye odaklan\u0131r. Oysa tam da bu \u00e7eli\u015fki teorisinin kendisinin devrim kavram\u0131ndan uzakla\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131na sebep oldu\u011fu g\u00f6r\u00fclmez. Bu, patriyarkay\u0131, aile d\u00fczleminde kalarak y\u0131kabilece\u011fini d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnmeye benzer. Dolay\u0131s\u0131 ile \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fc teorisinin Modernist Marksizmi g\u00f6t\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc yer, a\u015famac\u0131l\u0131k \u00fczerinden yeniden egemenlik kurman\u0131n paradigmas\u0131d\u0131r. Modernist Marksistlerin \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fc teorisi sonucu vard\u0131\u011f\u0131 devlet, Deleuze\u2019\u00fcn, \u201cdevletle hasta oldunuz, devletle iyile\u015feceksiniz, derler bize\u201d deyi\u015finde oldu\u011fu gibi, Marksizmin devletle\u015ftirilmesinin sonucudur. Modernist Marksizmin s\u0131n\u0131f kavram\u0131n\u0131n yetersizli\u011fine vurgu yapmak Marksizm kar\u015f\u0131tl\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011fil, bizzat Marksizmin i\u00e7inden Marksizm\u2019e bir m\u00fcdahale bi\u00e7imidir. Modern kapitalizmdeki prekarya, kognitariat gibi yeni emek bi\u00e7imlerinin ortaya \u00e7\u0131k\u0131\u015f\u0131, klasik i\u015f\u00e7i s\u0131n\u0131f\u0131 tan\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n yetersizli\u011fini g\u00f6stermi\u015ftir. \u00d6calan’\u0131n kom\u00fcn vurgusu, s\u0131n\u0131f kimli\u011finden ziyade ya\u015fam alan\u0131 ve dayan\u0131\u015fma a\u011flar\u0131 \u00fczerinden \u00f6rg\u00fctlenmeyi \u00f6nerirken, g\u00fcn\u00fcm\u00fcz toplumsal hareketlerinin ger\u00e7ekli\u011fini daha iyi yakalamaktad\u0131r. Occupy, Indignados, Sar\u0131 Yelekliler gibi hareketlerin s\u0131n\u0131f de\u011fil, kom\u00fcn mant\u0131\u011f\u0131yla \u00f6rg\u00fctlenmesi tesad\u00fcf de\u011fildir. \u0130\u015fte buras\u0131 da paradigmatik de\u011fi\u015fimdeki ikinci ayr\u0131m\u0131 olu\u015fturmaktad\u0131r. E\u011fer birbirinin \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcs\u00fc i\u00e7inden bir direni\u015f \u00fcretilemiyorsa, d\u00fczlem, ikili s\u0131n\u0131f rejimi i\u00e7inden koparak, bir s\u0131n\u0131fs\u0131zla\u015ft\u0131rma prati\u011fi olmak zorundad\u0131r. Modernist Marksist d\u00fczlem, \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fc teorisinin devam\u0131 olarak sermaye-emek g\u00fcc\u00fc aras\u0131ndaki ili\u015fkiyi bir \u2018s\u0131n\u0131fla\u015ft\u0131rma\u2019 ili\u015fkisi olarak g\u00f6remez. Dolay\u0131s\u0131 ile yeni paradigmada aslolan s\u0131n\u0131fla\u015ft\u0131rma prati\u011fine kar\u015f\u0131 s\u0131n\u0131fs\u0131zla\u015ft\u0131rma prati\u011fidir. Kom\u00fcnalizm vurgusu tam da bir s\u0131n\u0131fs\u0131zla\u015ft\u0131rma \u00fcretmenin prati\u011fi olarak anla\u015f\u0131lmak zorundad\u0131r. Bu devletle\u015ftirilmi\u015f Marksizmi yeniden devrimcile\u015ftirmek i\u00e7in tek olanakt\u0131r. Devlet-Kom\u00fcn ikileminde \u00f6ncelikle m\u00fcdahale edilmesi gereken alanlardan biri de tarihsel materyalizmin yeniden yorumlanmas\u0131d\u0131r. Pierre Clastres ve Devlete Kar\u015f\u0131 Toplum adl\u0131 \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmas\u0131nda ilkel topluluklar\u0131n devlet olu\u015fumuna bilin\u00e7li olarak direndiklerini g\u00f6stermi\u015ftir. \u00d6calan’\u0131n “toplum asl\u0131nda kom\u00fcnal bir olayd\u0131r” ve devletin d\u0131\u015far\u0131dan dayat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 tezi, Clastres’\u0131n bulgular\u0131yla desteklenir. Bu perspektif, Marx’\u0131n devleti s\u0131n\u0131f \u00e7at\u0131\u015fmas\u0131n\u0131n \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fc olarak g\u00f6ren yakla\u015f\u0131m\u0131ndan daha ikna edicidir; devlet toplumsal dokudaki bir sapma, bir anomali olarak belirir. Fakat Modernist Marksistlerin tarihsel materyalizm okumas\u0131 s\u0131n\u0131f i\u00e7inden \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u00e7in bu yeni teorik m\u00fcdahaleyi i\u00e7selle\u015ftirmeleri son derece zordur. Yerle\u015fik olan\u0131n donma, sabitlenme, hareketsizlik ger\u00e7e\u011finin tam kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda duran g\u00f6\u00e7ebe, ayn\u0131 zamanda kom\u00fcnal oland\u0131r. G\u00fcneydo\u011fu Asya da\u011fl\u0131k b\u00f6lgelerindeki topluluklar\u0131 ya da y\u00fczlerce y\u0131l konfederal bir tarzda ya\u015fam s\u00fcren K\u00fcrtlerin 1800\u2019lerin ba\u015f\u0131ndan itibaren Osmanl\u0131\u2019n\u0131n merkezine ba\u011flanmamak i\u00e7in g\u00f6sterdikleri direnci ve isyanlar silsilesini s\u0131n\u0131f i\u00e7inden okumak m\u00fcmk\u00fcn de\u011fildir. Bin y\u0131llard\u0131r devlet otoritesinden ka\u00e7mak i\u00e7in devrimcilerin\/g\u00f6\u00e7ebelerin geli\u015ftirdikleri stratejileri bile \u00d6calan’\u0131n kom\u00fcn-devlet antagonizmas\u0131n\u0131 ampirik olarak do\u011frular. Tarih boyunca insanlar\u0131n devletten ka\u00e7\u0131\u015f\u0131, s\u0131n\u0131f m\u00fccadelesinden daha temel bir dinamik olarak kar\u015f\u0131m\u0131za \u00e7\u0131kar. Bu nedenle Devlet-Kom\u00fcn aras\u0131ndaki sava\u015f\u0131 bir yan\u0131yla devletle\u015fmelere kar\u015f\u0131 devletsizle\u015fmeler olarak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnebiliriz. Bu hi\u00e7 de sermaye- emek g\u00fcc\u00fc aras\u0131ndaki \u00e7eli\u015fkiye benzer yeni bir \u00e7eli\u015fki teorisi olarak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fclmemelidir. Bu, ya\u015fam\u0131n \u00fcretilmesi ve yarat\u0131lmas\u0131na yani tek bir d\u00fczleme ili\u015fkin iki farkl\u0131 bak\u0131\u015f, iki farkl\u0131 i\u015flevidir. Bu nedenle do\u011frudan \u00e7eli\u015fki kavram\u0131 ile a\u00e7\u0131klanamaz. Bu da bizi paradigmatik de\u011fi\u015fimdeki \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ayr\u0131ma g\u00f6t\u00fcr\u00fcyor. Bu ayr\u0131m\u0131n \u00f6nemi, bir toplumsal saha analizi nas\u0131l yapabilece\u011fimize ili\u015fkin bize ipu\u00e7lar\u0131 veri. Deleuze\u2019lerin dedi\u011fi gibi, bir toplum \u00e7eli\u015fkileri ile de\u011fil, \u2018Ka\u00e7\u0131\u015f \u00c7izgileri\u2019 ile tan\u0131mlan\u0131r. O zaman Direni\u015f her zaman iktidar\u0131 \u00f6nceler. Kom\u00fcn\/devlet sava\u015f\u0131nda devletle\u015fmeye kar\u015f\u0131 direni\u015f her zaman devleti \u00f6nceler. Devlet art\u0131k Modernist gelenekteki gibi toplumun i\u00e7 geli\u015fimi ile olu\u015fan bir yap\u0131 de\u011fildir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131 ile devlet, Modernist gelene\u011fin s\u00f6yledi\u011fi gibi, kom\u00fcn\u00fcn eksiklerini tamamlamak i\u00e7in olu\u015fan, toplumun evrimsel bir \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fc ya da zorunlu s\u00fcreci de\u011fil bizzat kom\u00fcne bir m\u00fcdahaledir. Bu toplumsal saha analizi, yani direni\u015fin \u00f6nce geldi\u011fi tezi, ikili varl\u0131k\/entite \u00fczerinden d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnme rejimini de y\u0131karak, antagonizmay\u0131 da yeniden devrimci olan\u0131n kalbine yerle\u015ftirir. Bu ikilemden \u00e7\u0131karak antagonizma \u00fczerinden d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnmenin yeni olana\u011f\u0131, Marksizmin devletle\u015ftirilmesine kar\u015f\u0131 devrimcile\u015ftirilmesinin yeg\u00e2ne olana\u011f\u0131d\u0131r. Art\u0131k T\u00fcrkiyeli Modernistler de bunun i\u00e7inde konumlanacaklard\u0131r. Ya devletle\u015ftirilmi\u015f Marksizmin i\u00e7inden gittik\u00e7e sa\u011fc\u0131la\u015facak ya da devrimcile\u015fmi\u015f bir Marksizmin i\u00e7inde sol, ya\u015fam\u0131 \u00f6rg\u00fctlemenin ger\u00e7ek deneyinin politik prati\u011fini \u00fcreteceklerdir. Kom\u00fcnalist okumalar\u0131n \u00e7o\u011fu, hiyerar\u015finin s\u0131n\u0131ftan \u00f6nce geldi\u011fini ve t\u00fcm tahakk\u00fcm bi\u00e7imlerinin kayna\u011f\u0131 oldu\u011funa dair zengin bir k\u00fclliyat b\u0131rakm\u0131\u015flard\u0131r. Kald\u0131 ki Otonomist gelene\u011fin, \u201cs\u0131n\u0131f m\u00fccadelesi s\u0131n\u0131f\u0131 \u00f6nceler\u201d tezini de bu katk\u0131ya eklemek gerekir. Tam da yukar\u0131da s\u00f6yledi\u011fimiz, direni\u015fin iktidar\u0131 \u00f6nceledi\u011fi tezinin devam\u0131 olan bu bak\u0131\u015f sayesinde devrim fikri canl\u0131 ve dinamik bir devrimci-olu\u015fa ba\u011flan\u0131r. T\u00fcm bu arg\u00fcmanlar, \u00d6calan’\u0131n devlet ele\u015ftirisinin teorik zeminini g\u00fc\u00e7lendirir. Bookchin’e g\u00f6re s\u0131n\u0131f, hiyerar\u015finin bir t\u00fcrevi oldu\u011fundan, s\u0131n\u0131f m\u00fccadelesi tahakk\u00fcm\u00fcn k\u00f6kenine inemez. \u00d6calan’\u0131n kom\u00fcn vurgusu, bu daha derin soruna yan\u0131t aray\u0131\u015f\u0131d\u0131r. Her biri devlete kar\u015f\u0131 ba\u015fka bir devleti \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcm olarak \u00f6ng\u00f6ren ulusal kurtulu\u015f hareketlerinin ba\u015far\u0131s\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 tabandan \u00f6rg\u00fctlenen konfederal yap\u0131lar\u0131yla Rojava deneyimi, bug\u00fcn bu modelin sadece teorik de\u011fil, pratik olarak da uygulanabilir oldu\u011funu kan\u0131tlam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.  \u00d6zg\u00fcrl\u00fck Hareketinin kom\u00fcn anlay\u0131\u015f\u0131nda sorunun s\u0131n\u0131flar de\u011fil heteronomi (ba\u015fkas\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan y\u00f6netilme) ve \u00f6zerklik talebi aras\u0131nda oldu\u011fu tezinde Kurdistan ve Ortado\u011fu\u2019daki \u00e7at\u0131\u015fk\u0131\/\u00e7at\u0131\u015fma dinamikleriyle son derece uyumludur. Devlet, heteronominin kurumsalla\u015fm\u0131\u015f bi\u00e7imiyken, kom\u00fcn \u00f6zerk toplumun ifadesidir. Bu okuma, \u00d6calan’\u0131n paradigma de\u011fi\u015fimini sadece K\u00fcrt hareketinin takti\u011fi de\u011fil, evrensel bir \u00f6zg\u00fcrle\u015fme projesi olarak konumland\u0131r\u0131r. K\u00d6H\u2019\u00fcn \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fck paradigmas\u0131n\u0131n tam da Marksizm\u2019e bu m\u00fcdahalesiyle olu\u015fan \u00f6zg\u00fcrle\u015fme d\u00fczleminin sadece K\u00fcrtlere ya da Ortado\u011fu\u2019ya de\u011fil, t\u00fcm d\u00fcnya halklar\u0131na arma\u011fan\u0131 oldu\u011funu s\u00f6ylememizin nedeni de budur. Modernist Marksizm, kapitalizmin yakla\u015f\u0131k 600 y\u0131ll\u0131k kurucu dinami\u011fini g\u00f6z ard\u0131 ederek kapitalizmi analiz eder ve bu analizi ekonomi politi\u011fin ele\u015ftirisinin temel teorik\/pratik dayana\u011f\u0131 yapar. Demokratik Modernite ise kapitalizmi ba\u015fat denilen \u00e7eli\u015fki \u00fczerinden de\u011fil kapitalizmi b\u00fct\u00fcn kurucu dinamikleriyle birlikte analiz ederek \u2018tarihin ilk s\u00f6m\u00fcrgesi kad\u0131nd\u0131r\u2019 tezini Kom\u00fcnalist fikriyat\u0131n temeli olarak belirler. S\u0131n\u0131f kavram\u0131n\u0131n art\u0131k bir durumu, bir varl\u0131\u011f\u0131, bir toplulu\u011fu ifade etmedi\u011fini ve s\u0131n\u0131f\u0131 kuran \u015feyin s\u0131n\u0131f\u0131n kendisi de\u011fil s\u0131n\u0131flar m\u00fccadelesi oldu\u011fundan hareket eder; t\u0131pk\u0131 K\u00fcrtl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc kuran \u015feyin soyut bir halk kavram\u0131 de\u011fil biyopolitik alan\u0131n t\u00fcm\u00fcn\u00fc bir in\u015fa ve direni\u015f alan\u0131na d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcren yeni bir K\u00fcrtl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn kurucu g\u00fcc\u00fc oldu\u011fu gibi. Paradigman\u0131n modernist yakla\u015f\u0131mlardan bariz bi\u00e7imde ayr\u0131lan y\u00f6n\u00fc \u015fudur: Birincisi s\u0131n\u0131f, s\u0131n\u0131f m\u00fccadelesinden \u00f6nce gelmez, varl\u0131k politikay\u0131 de\u011fil, politika varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00f6nceler; varl\u0131k direni\u015ften \u00f6nce de\u011fil direni\u015f varl\u0131ktan \u00f6nce gelir.  \u00d6zg\u00fcrl\u00fck hareketi iktisadi kategorilerle de\u011fil s\u00f6m\u00fcrgecilik ile kapitalist modernitenin can damarlar\u0131na sald\u0131r\u0131 hatlar\u0131 kurarak m\u00fccadele i\u00e7inde in\u015fa edilen bir s\u0131n\u0131fs\u0131zla\u015fma yaratmay\u0131 esas al\u0131r.   Bununla birlikte \u00d6calan hi\u00e7bir metninde s\u0131n\u0131f\u0131n do\u011fu\u015funu ve ba\u011flay\u0131c\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ret etmemi\u015ftir. Temel itiraz\u0131 tarihin s\u0131n\u0131flar sava\u015f\u0131yla ba\u015flad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve b\u00fct\u00fcn toplumsal ili\u015fkinin bu \u00e7at\u0131\u015fk\u0131 \u00fczerinden \u015fekillendi\u011fi tezine kar\u015f\u0131d\u0131r. Tarih s\u0131n\u0131f\u0131n do\u011fu\u015fuyla de\u011fil, s\u0131n\u0131ftan \u00f6nce ortaya \u00e7\u0131km\u0131\u015f olan ve s\u0131n\u0131flar\u0131n karakterini belirleyen erkek egemen toplumsalla\u015fman\u0131n kad\u0131n merkezli toplumsalla\u015fmay\u0131 belli bir cins k\u0131r\u0131m\u0131 yoluyla tasfiye etmesiyle ba\u015flat\u0131l\u0131r. O y\u00fczden \u2018ilk s\u00f6m\u00fcrge kad\u0131nd\u0131r\u2019 tezi bu d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnsel hatt\u0131n ana omurgas\u0131n\u0131 olu\u015fturur. \u00c7\u00fcnk\u00fc s\u0131n\u0131fla\u015fmay\u0131 sadece ekonomik s\u0131n\u0131flara indirgedi\u011fimizde toplumsal ili\u015fkilerin t\u00fcm\u00fcnde s\u0131n\u0131fla\u015ft\u0131rman\u0131n nas\u0131l \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve toplumsal ili\u015fkinin k\u0131lcallar\u0131na kadar s\u0131zabilen s\u00f6m\u00fcr\u00fc ve iktidar ili\u015fkisini asla g\u00f6remeyiz. Bu ele\u015ftiri, Cengiz Baysoy\u2019un deyimiyle selefile\u015ftirilmi\u015f Marx\u2019\u0131n yeniden devrimcile\u015ftirilmesidir.  Post Marksistlerin, kent hakk\u0131 m\u00fccadelesinin s\u0131n\u0131f m\u00fccadelesinin yeni bi\u00e7imi oldu\u011funa dair iddialar\u0131 ilk bak\u0131\u015fta \u00d6calan\u2019\u0131n kom\u00fcn vurgusunu s\u0131n\u0131f analizine do\u011fru b\u00fcker gibi g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcr. Ancak bu iddian\u0131n sahipleri bile bu m\u00fccadelelerin klasik i\u015f\u00e7i s\u0131n\u0131f\u0131 \u00f6rg\u00fctlenmesinden farkl\u0131, mekansal ve kom\u00fcnal bir karaktere sahip oldu\u011funu kabul eder. Bu a\u00e7\u0131dan \u00d6calan’\u0131n kom\u00fcn paradigmas\u0131, Post Marksistlerin kent hakk\u0131 kavram\u0131n\u0131 daha tutarl\u0131 bir teorik \u00e7er\u00e7eveye oturtur. Bu paradigma ile kent art\u0131k verili bak\u0131\u015f a\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131n\u0131n toplam\u0131 olmaktan da \u00e7\u0131kar, bak\u0131\u015f a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131 \u00fcretiminin\/yarat\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n p\u00fcr\u00fczs\u00fcz bir mek\u00e2n ve zaman \u00f6rg\u00fctlenmesi olarak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcl\u00fcr. Bu da bizi paradigmatik de\u011fi\u015fimdeki d\u00f6rd\u00fcnc\u00fc ayr\u0131ma g\u00f6t\u00fcr\u00fcr. Devrimci m\u00fccadeleler, verili bak\u0131\u015f i\u00e7inde bir bak\u0131\u015f de\u011fildir. Yeni olan\u0131n \u00fcretim ve yarat\u0131m\u0131 sorunudur. Bu \u00fcretim ve yarat\u0131m\u0131n devrimci dinamik i\u00e7indeki \u00f6nemi, d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncenin, bir erteleme ile beklentiye indirgenmeden \u2018\u015eimdi ve Burada\u2019 \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmas\u0131d\u0131r. \u00d6b\u00fcr t\u00fcrl\u00fcs\u00fc Nietzsche\u2019nin s\u00f6z etti\u011fi gelece\u011fe havale edilmi\u015f umudun i\u015fkenceye ve \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fclmeye d\u00f6nm\u00fc\u015f halidir. Tam da bu nedenle antagonizmam\u0131z\u0131n \u015fimdi ve burada direni\u015fe i\u00e7kin hale gelmesi sonucu, politik olan\u0131, verili bir bak\u0131\u015ftan de\u011fil bir \u00fcretim\/yarat\u0131m kavram\u0131n\u0131n i\u00e7inden d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnmeye ba\u015fl\u0131yoruz. K\u00fcrt \u00d6zg\u00fcrl\u00fck Hareketinin bu hamlesi i\u015fte bu y\u00fczden bu topraklarda \u201chen\u00fcz d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnmeyenler\u201d i\u00e7in bir d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnmeye davettir.  Modernist Marksistler, kapitalizm var olduk\u00e7a s\u0131n\u0131flar\u0131n da var olaca\u011f\u0131 tezini teorik kalk\u0131\u015f noktalar\u0131 yaparak kom\u00fcn-devlet \u00e7at\u0131\u015fk\u0131s\u0131n\u0131n s\u0131n\u0131f \u00e7at\u0131\u015fmas\u0131n\u0131 gizledi\u011fini iddia edebilirler. Ancak \u00d6calan s\u0131n\u0131flar\u0131n varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ink\u00e2r etmez; ama bu ili\u015fkiyi yerle bir etmek ister. S\u0131n\u0131f art\u0131k bir s\u0131n\u0131fla\u015ft\u0131rma ili\u015fkisidir. \u0130\u015fte bu y\u00fczden kom\u00fcnler i\u00e7inde s\u0131n\u0131fla\u015ft\u0131rma ili\u015fkisini engelleyecek mekanizmalar, tam da kom\u00fcnal \u00f6rg\u00fctlenmenin otonom karakteri sayesinde geli\u015ftirilir. Bu otonom karakter, bizi paradigmatik de\u011fi\u015fimdeki be\u015finci ayr\u0131ma g\u00f6t\u00fcr\u00fcr. Modernist Marksizmin ekonomi-politik ve \u00e7eli\u015fki \u00fczerinden kurdu\u011fu ve sermaye ve devletle i\u00e7sel bir ili\u015fki oturan bu d\u00fczleme kar\u015f\u0131, \u2018Etik-Politik D\u00fczleme\u2019 ge\u00e7ilmek zorundad\u0131r. Etik-politik d\u00fczlemin s\u0131n\u0131fla\u015ft\u0131rma ili\u015fkisini engellemek i\u00e7in ara\u00e7lar\u0131 vard\u0131r. Bu ara\u00e7 \u201c\u00f6z savunmad\u0131r.\u201d Demokratik Modernite tezi en ba\u015f\u0131ndan beri Marksizmin en ba\u015fat tart\u0131\u015fma konusu olan ekonomik ili\u015fki ile toplumsal ili\u015fki aras\u0131ndaki diyalekti\u011fi, ayr\u0131 bir teorik tart\u0131\u015fma eksenine \u00e7ekerek kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131kl\u0131 belirleme ve etkile\u015fimden ziyade belirlenimi direni\u015fin hakikati olarak in\u015fa etmenin m\u00fccadelesini esas alm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Yani hakikati belirlemekten ziyade belirlemenin kendisini in\u015fa etmek i\u00e7in direnir. Tam da bu noktada kapitalist moderniteye kar\u015f\u0131 demokratik modernite tezini s\u00f6m\u00fcrgele\u015ftirme arzusunun tam kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda konumland\u0131r\u0131r. \u00c7\u00fcnk\u00fc demokratik modernite hi\u00e7bir zaman belirlemez, belirlenimi in\u015fa eder, g\u00f6stermez, g\u00f6sterge \u00fcretir. Toplumsal ili\u015fkiyi salt ekonomik olan\u0131n alt\u0131na g\u00f6men indirgemeci tarz\u0131 ele\u015ftirerek ili\u015fkiselli\u011fi savunur. Bu y\u00f6n\u00fcyle asl\u0131nda ekonomi\/politik indirgemecili\u011fe kar\u015f\u0131 etik\/politik bir itiraz \u00fcretir.  \u00d6calan’\u0131n teorik d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f\u00fcm\u00fcn\u00fc, 21. y\u00fczy\u0131lda sol siyasetin kar\u015f\u0131la\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00e7\u0131kmazlara yan\u0131t arama \u00e7abas\u0131ndan ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z ele almak m\u00fcmk\u00fcn de\u011fildir. \u2018Ya Sosyalizm Ya Barbarl\u0131k\u2019 slogan\u0131 kendinden menkul bir de\u011fer olarak b\u00fct\u00fcn m\u00fccadele tarihine sabitlenmi\u015ftir. Ama as\u0131l can al\u0131c\u0131 noktas\u0131 \u015fudur: Y\u00fczlerce y\u0131ld\u0131r hem pratik hem de teorik anlamda b\u00fcy\u00fck \u00e7\u0131kmazlarla bo\u011fu\u015fan modernist sosyalizme kar\u015f\u0131 nas\u0131l bir sosyalizm? \u00d6calan\u2019\u0131n pe\u015fine d\u00fc\u015ft\u00fc\u011f\u00fc as\u0131l soru budur! \u00c7\u00fcnk\u00fc s\u0131n\u0131f\u0131n d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnemeyen kaba s\u0131n\u0131f indirgemecili\u011fi, sosyalist hareketleri ya parlamenter reformizme ya da otoriter devlet\u00e7ili\u011fe mahk\u00fbm etmi\u015ftir. Kom\u00fcn-devlet paradigmas\u0131, bu iki \u00e7\u0131kmaz aras\u0131nda \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc bir yol a\u00e7ar: Ne devlet iktidar\u0131n\u0131 ele ge\u00e7irmek ne de kapitalist devletle uzla\u015fmak, devlete kar\u015f\u0131 otonom toplumsal alanlar\u0131 geni\u015fletmek temel strateji olarak ortaya \u00e7\u0131kar. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla bu paradigma de\u011fi\u015fimi Marksizm\u2019den bir \u00e7\u0131k\u0131\u015f de\u011fil Marksizmin 21. Y\u00fczy\u0131ldaki b\u00fcy\u00fck teorik\/pratik \u00e7\u0131kmazlar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 bir \u00e7\u0131k\u0131\u015f arama \u00e7abas\u0131d\u0131r. \u00d6calan, bu hamlesiyle Marksist teoriyi Hobbes \u2019ten Marksizm \u00e7\u0131karan bir devlet\u00e7i solun ve sol Schimit\u00e7ilerin elinden kurtarmaya \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmaktad\u0131r. \u00c7\u00fcnk\u00fc politik teori tarihi temelde \u00fc\u00e7 alan \u00fczerinden \u00e7al\u0131\u015fm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bunlar egemenlik, toplumsal ili\u015fkiler ve ekonomi politiktir. Marks, toplumsal ili\u015fkilerden hareket ederek ekonomi politi\u011fin ve egemenlik ili\u015fkisinin yani devletin bir ele\u015ftirisini ortaya koyar. Marks i\u00e7in devlet, bir s\u0131n\u0131f\u0131n ba\u015fka s\u0131n\u0131flar taraf\u0131ndan ezilmesini me\u015frula\u015ft\u0131ran bir ayg\u0131tt\u0131r. Tam da bu noktada proletarya devlete el koyan de\u011fil devleti tamam\u0131yla ortadan kald\u0131ran tarihsel\/toplumsal bir rol bi\u00e7mi\u015ftir. \u00d6zg\u00fcr ve halk\u00e7\u0131 bir devletten s\u00f6z  etmek sa\u00e7mal\u0131kt\u0131r s\u00f6z\u00fc bir bizzat Marks\u2019a aittir ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn oldu\u011fu yerde devletin, devletin oldu\u011fu yerde \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 en iyi bilenler bizzat Marksistlerdir!  Nas\u0131l ki Marx, Hegel’in diyalekti\u011fini “ayaklar\u0131 \u00fczerine oturttu” ise, \u00d6calan da Marksist teoriyi devlet feti\u015fizminden kurtararak \u00f6zg\u00fcrle\u015ftirici \u00f6z\u00fcne d\u00f6nd\u00fcrmeyi hedefler. Marks, s\u0131n\u0131f kavram\u0131na ve s\u0131n\u0131flar m\u00fccadelesi ifadesine devrimci m\u00fcdahalede bulunur ve s\u0131n\u0131f kavram\u0131n\u0131 tamam\u0131yla ortadan kald\u0131racak s\u0131n\u0131fs\u0131z bir toplumun devrimci teorisini ortaya koymaya \u00e7al\u0131\u015f\u0131r. Lenin\u2019in deyimiyle devrimcileri devrimci yapan \u015fey s\u0131n\u0131fa g\u00f6m\u00fcl\u00fcp kalmak de\u011fil b\u00fct\u00fcn s\u0131n\u0131flar\u0131n ortadan kalkt\u0131\u011f\u0131 s\u0131n\u0131fs\u0131z bir topluma varma d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesini benimsemeleridir. \u00d6calan\u2019\u0131n devlet ve kom\u00fcn konusundaki perspektif metninde en b\u00fcy\u00fck dayana\u011f\u0131 bizzat Marks ve Lenin\u2019dir! \u00d6calan, iktidar ve hegemonya sorununda merkezile\u015fen bir parti devletinden ziyade yerele yay\u0131lm\u0131\u015f ve kolektifler \u00fczerinden \u00f6rg\u00fctlenmi\u015f bir halk meclisleri ger\u00e7e\u011fine g\u00f6nderme yapar. Bunu yatay a\u011flar \u015feklinde \u00f6rg\u00fctlenmi\u015f kom\u00fcnler olarak form\u00fclle\u015ftirir. Merkezile\u015fmi\u015f bir savunma bi\u00e7iminden ziyade kendi \u00f6z savunma g\u00fc\u00e7lerini \u00f6rg\u00fctlemi\u015f yeni bir toplumsall\u0131\u011f\u0131 esas al\u0131r. Bu \u00f6z savunmay\u0131 cinsiyet, dil, s\u0131n\u0131f, k\u00fclt\u00fcr, ideoloji, benlik gibi b\u00fct\u00fcn savunma alanlar\u0131na yayar. \u00c7\u00fcnk\u00fc modernist gelenek, politik olan\u0131 iktidar perspektifi ile d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcr, Politika her zaman iktidarla diyalektik bir ili\u015fki i\u00e7ine hapsolmu\u015ftur. Oysa \u00f6z savunma anlay\u0131\u015f\u0131 politik olan\u0131 ya\u015fam\u0131n t\u00fcm mikro alanlar\u0131na yayar. \u00d6zsavunma bedenlerin disiplin ya da denetim alt\u0131na al\u0131nmas\u0131n\u0131 esas alan biyopolitikaya kar\u015f\u0131 direni\u015fin biyopolitikas\u0131d\u0131r. B\u00fct\u00fcn bu a\u00e7\u0131klamalar \u0131\u015f\u0131\u011f\u0131nda ve bu yaz\u0131n\u0131n s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131 i\u00e7inde paradigmatik de\u011fi\u015fime ili\u015fkin 5 ba\u015fl\u0131k a\u00e7maya \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131k. A\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7as\u0131 bu ba\u015fl\u0131klar \u00e7o\u011falt\u0131labilir olsa da bu ba\u015fl\u0131klar her birine ili\u015fkin ayr\u0131nt\u0131l\u0131 \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalar yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi de ka\u00e7\u0131n\u0131lmazd\u0131r. \u00d6calan’\u0131n kom\u00fcn paradigmas\u0131, sosyalist hareketin gelece\u011fi i\u00e7in sosyalizmden bir kopu\u015f de\u011fil, sosyalizmin yeni bir stratejik hamle ile g\u00fcncellenmesi olarak de\u011ferlendirilmelidir. Bu perspektif, hem tarihsel deneyimin derslerini i\u00e7erir hem de yeni m\u00fccadele bi\u00e7imlerine teorik zemin ve m\u00fccadele\/in\u015fa krokileri haz\u0131rlar. Marksist ortodoksinin bu yeni perspektife kar\u015f\u0131 direnci anla\u015f\u0131l\u0131r olsa da, teorinin canl\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 dogmalara sadakatten de\u011fil, ger\u00e7eklikle y\u00fczle\u015fme cesaretinden gelir. Bu noktada hi\u00e7bir sloganik ve temelsiz tuza\u011fa gelmeden \u015funu a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a s\u00f6yleyebiliriz: Tarih dedi\u011fimiz \u015fey s\u0131n\u0131flar sava\u015f\u0131 de\u011fil, s\u0131n\u0131fla\u015ft\u0131rmaya kar\u015f\u0131 s\u0131n\u0131fs\u0131zla\u015fma m\u00fccadelesidir. Kom\u00fcn, s\u0131n\u0131fs\u0131zla\u015fman\u0131n politik prati\u011finin etik-politik g\u00fcc\u00fcd\u00fcr. Devlete kar\u015f\u0131 devlet, s\u0131n\u0131fa kar\u015f\u0131 devlet ikiliklerinin \u00e7ok \u00f6tesinde yepyeni bir hakikat s\u00fcrekli bize g\u00f6z k\u0131rpmaya devam etmektedir: devlete kar\u015f\u0131 s\u0131n\u0131fla ya da devlete kar\u015f\u0131 yeni bir devletle\u015fme prati\u011fiyle kar\u015f\u0131 konulamaz; devlete kar\u015f\u0131 kom\u00fcn antagonizmas\u0131, devrimin yeniden devrimcile\u015fmesinde \u00f6nemli bir ad\u0131md\u0131r. B\u00fct\u00fcn toplumsal ili\u015fkilerin kom\u00fcnle\u015ftirilmesi, ya\u015fam\u0131 s\u0131n\u0131fs\u0131zla\u015ft\u0131ran demokratik kom\u00fcnalizmin politik prati\u011finin di\u011fer bir ifadesidir.  \u00d6zetle, Modernist Marksizmin, tarihsel materyalizm ve b\u00fct\u00fcnc\u00fcl toplum anlay\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131n esas\u0131 olan, \u00f6zne (proletarya) ile strateji (proletaryan\u0131n iktidar\u0131 ele ge\u00e7irmesi) olarak belirlenen ikili aras\u0131ndaki ba\u011f\u0131nt\u0131 kopmu\u015ftur. Bu noktada \u00d6calan\u2019\u0131n Marksizm\u2019i bir iktidar parametresini ve \u00e7oklu yeniden \u00fcretim d\u00fczlemlerini geni\u015fleten bir \u00e7izgiden kopu\u015f de\u011fil olsa olsa s\u0131n\u0131r\u0131 germe ve daha da geni\u015fletme \u00e7abas\u0131d\u0131r. Devrim, iktidar\u0131n el de\u011fi\u015ftirmesi de\u011fil ak\u0131\u015fkanla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131, devletins\u00f6n\u00fcmlenmesi de\u011fil devletin her taraf\u0131nda gedikler\/ka\u00e7\u0131\u015f \u00e7izgileri olu\u015fturup devrimci-olu\u015flar\u0131 \u00e7o\u011faltmakt\u0131r.  S\u0131n\u0131f antagonizmas\u0131, kom\u00fcn-devlet \u00f6l\u00e7e\u011finde teknik ve kurumsal olarak ters y\u00fcz edilmeden yeni devrimci stratejilerin m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 tarih bize defalarca g\u00f6stermi\u015ftir. \u00c7\u00fcnk\u00fc s\u00f6m\u00fcr\u00fc sadece \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fc teorisi i\u00e7inden okunan art\u0131-de\u011fer ile de\u011fil biyopolitik ya\u015fam\u0131n t\u00fcm k\u0131lcal damarlar\u0131nda kendini duyuran iktidar yo\u011funla\u015fmalar\u0131yla \u00e7al\u0131\u015f\u0131r. Bu bak\u0131\u015f, Marksizmin \u00e7ekirde\u011fini koruyup stratejik eksenini geni\u015fletme giri\u015fimi olarak okunmal\u0131d\u0131r.  B\u00fct\u00fcn bu nedenlerle bizim yapmaya \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131m\u0131z, Modernistlerin yukar\u0131da bu 5 ayr\u0131m i\u00e7inde yazd\u0131\u011f\u0131m\u0131z paradigma fark\u0131n\u0131 tart\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131n\u0131 d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnceye davete d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcrmektir. (1) \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fc teorisinden \u00e7\u0131k\u0131\u015f\u0131, (2) s\u0131n\u0131fla\u015ft\u0131rmaya kar\u015f\u0131 s\u0131n\u0131fs\u0131zla\u015ft\u0131rma prati\u011fini, (3) bir toplumsal saha analizinde ka\u00e7\u0131\u015f \u00e7izgilerinin, yani direni\u015fin \u00e7eli\u015fkiyi \u00f6nceledi\u011fi, (4) devrimci m\u00fccadelelerin verili bir bak\u0131\u015fa yerle\u015filerek de\u011fil \u00fcretim\/yarat\u0131m kavramlar\u0131 ile d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnmeyi zorunlu k\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 PERSPEKT\u0130V\u0130ZM kavram\u0131n\u0131n \u015fimdinin ontolojisi oldu\u011fu, (5) ve son olarak ekonomi-politi\u011fe kar\u015f\u0131 etik-politik bir d\u00fczleme ge\u00e7ilmesi gerekti\u011fi \u015feklinde \u00f6zetleyebilece\u011fimiz bu 5 fark, iktidar\u0131n\/devletin biyo-politikas\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 direni\u015fin biyopolitikas\u0131n\u0131n da olana\u011f\u0131n\u0131 a\u00e7acakt\u0131r. \u00c7ok uzun on y\u0131llar boyunca devlet eksenli, sermaye birikim rejimi eksenli d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnen Modernist Marksistler i\u00e7in bunun zorlu\u011fu ortada olsa da K\u00fcrt \u00d6zg\u00fcrl\u00fck Hareketinin silah b\u0131rakmaya indirgenemeyecek olan hamlesi sonras\u0131, Marksizm yeniden bir olanak olarak d\u00fcnya sahnesine \u00e7\u0131kacakt\u0131r.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"iawp_total_views":5,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-438","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/selaheddinbiyani.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/438","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/selaheddinbiyani.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/selaheddinbiyani.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/selaheddinbiyani.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/selaheddinbiyani.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=438"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/selaheddinbiyani.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/438\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":440,"href":"https:\/\/selaheddinbiyani.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/438\/revisions\/440"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/selaheddinbiyani.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=438"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/selaheddinbiyani.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=438"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/selaheddinbiyani.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=438"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}