Deniz Adalı
May 2025 – Kaldıraç Issue 286
Every revolution, no matter where on earth it takes place, is characterized by the prominence of youth and women. The reason every revolution is called a women’s revolution is because of the liberating effect of it. Women, as workers and laborers, not only suffer exploitation like every other human being, but also face greater oppression, humiliation, and discrimination due to the dominant culture of thousands of years of history in class-based society. They live under “double exploitation,” just like “blacks.” Therefore, once the revolution begins to change the social atmosphere, women do not hesitate to take their place at the very forefront. This is liberation. For this reason, it would not be an exaggeration to say that there has never been a revolution in history that has not been called a “women’s revolution.”
The youth, on the other hand, are the demographic least adapted to the social hegemony and order of the ruling class. If the expression is appropriate, the youth are the most critical of the rules of the system. The youth are not as accustomed to injustice, the rules of the established order, the hegemonic moral understanding, or the hegemonic mindset as the elderly, nor have they internalized them to the same extent. For these reasons, they are advantaged in responding to injustice. Their minds have not yet been filled with outdated ideas. No matter how much the system tries to bend their thoughts through education, they still resist it. They have not yet “given up” on asking questions and demanding accountability.
This is a common feature of all young people, whether they are workers or students. They are quicker to grasp the obsolete nature of the established order and are quick to react against it. One reason they react quickly is their youthful minds and bodies, and another is their lack of deep attachment to the established order.
For this reason, youth is one of the driving forces of the revolution. Without gaining the allegiance of youth, the socialist revolution cannot achieve victory in the hands of the working class. Working-class youth is also the most dynamic segment of the working class, which will determine the outcome of the struggle. The socialist revolution must also gain the allegiance of the student youth.
The revolution developing in our country is a socialist revolution. The socialist revolution is the first step towards abolishing the enslavement of humans by humans, putting an end to exploitation, and building a world without war and borders. And all of this is consistent with the fact that youth is the future of society. Destroying the obsolete system and building a new world can only be transformed into a creative process in the hands of youth. For this reason, the path of the youth is the revolutionary path of the working class.
The socialist revolution will triumph under the leadership of the working class. However, youth are the ones who can take steps that could shake up the whole society, both in terms of the development of the struggle and the development of creative forms of struggle. As receptive to learning as it is, youth is also active in developing new forms of struggle. For this reason, the unity of the working class’s struggle alongside the youth’s struggle holds great significance. As student youth walks the revolutionary path of the working class, the working class will learn from the youth’s agility and methods of struggle.
That’s why we reckon that what’ll decide the victory of the revolution is the cadres who’ll fight for it, especially the young ones. Youth (working-class and student youth) will also pave the way for the establishment of the new with the same energetic structure.
The ideas of revolution and socialism have the potential to spread rapidly and take root among young people who see no future in capitalist society— as the capitalism has no future. The ideas of revolution and socialism can develop much more quickly, especially among student youth. The dreams of youth, which are still untainted, are fully compatible with the understanding of revolution and socialism.
All of these are, in fact, well-known debates about the role of youth in the revolution, and they are not the main focus of our writing.
On March 19, 2025, twelve years after the Gezi Resistance, a new wave of resistance emerged.
When the Gezi Resistance took place, those who are 18 years old today were 6 years old at that time and may have breathed the air of the Gezi Resistance alongside a relative. But high school students who are 14 years old today and participated in this resistance are not from the generation that experienced the Gezi atmosphere. At 14 years old, people in our country are taking on the responsibility of supporting their families and engaging in unconventional work to make a living. For a 14-year-old student to join the struggle for revolution and socialism cannot be described as joining the struggle at an “early age.” It cannot be, because life is already imposing these conditions on them.
The Gezi Resistance emerged in 2013 as a spontaneous social explosion that shook the entire society and “bent the ruling power out of shape”. Since the resistance was spontaneous in nature, it was inevitably going to retreat to the extent as it did not meet with an organized leadership. That is what happened. It was not possible for the resistance movement to reclaim Taksim Square for the second time. Gezi lost its power as the crowds that gathered in certain areas gradually dispersed over time. If the Gezi Resistance had taken a different direction, such as occupying certain public buildings, the situation could have unfolded differently. Ultimately, the process did not develop in this way, and the revolutionary socialist movement was unable to take the lead in Gezi. Nevertheless, the Gezi Resistance marked the beginning of a collective confrontation with September 12, 1980, and from that point onward, despite its setbacks, it paved the way for the formation of a continuous resistance front.
Resistance continued locally, in factories, schools, workplaces, and occasionally in the streets. But during this 12-year period, it gained momentum and continued to expand. Student youth need to understand this steady and increasingly determined struggle.
On the one hand, the fact that the working class did not even have its own unions, and on the other hand, the weak organization of the masses, emerged as obstacles to the rapid development of resistance. The Palace Regime emerged as a kind of an extraordinary state organization of the Turkish Republic against the resistances. Against the Kurdish movement and the ongoing resistance in western Turkey, the Turkish Republic organized an extraordinary regime as required by the plans of its imperialist masters. The Palace Regime began to construct a wall against every resistance, every ordinary act of seeking rights, and every ordinary reaction, disregarding the constitution and laws in accordance with the laws of civil war. They stood against every women’s action, every student action, every worker action, and every environmental action with water cannons, batons, the press, propaganda machines, courts, and tear gas. They wanted to create a silent and submissive society. “Strengthening the internal front” was a policy put in place to achieve this goal. They wanted to silence everyone. Many people wondered, “If we behave ourselves, will the police not attack us?” Today, those who tell revolutionaries and young people not to “provoke” are actually trying to hide the fact that the Palace Regime has always been aggressive. The CHP called on the masses to stay home, not to stand up to the state, not to take to the streets, and to abandon the squares. But these policies did not reduce the Palace Regime’s attacks, either. On the contrary, the CHP’s policy of keeping the masses at home began to backfire.
Twelve years later, on March 19, İmamoğlu’s arrest and the annulment of his university degree were the last straw, and student youth began to tear down the barricades. The barricade torn down at Istanbul University actually symbolized the dismantling of the mental barricades that had been built up by the police at every protest for years. Those whose minds were least polluted were the first to tear down the barricades.
According to the CHP’s logic, İmamoğlu provoked the Palace by obtaining his diploma 31 years ago or by wanting to run for president. Those who tell us, the young people, “don’t provoke,” actually want us to forget that the source of the pressure and violence that has emerged and is evident is the state, that there is state terrorism.
For years, the Palace Regime has been privatizing the education system. With private educational institutions, students have been turned into customers. Education itself has ceased to be a productive learning process and has been turned into a kind of consumption process. Education has been disconnected from science and turned into a part of the state’s apparatus of oppression.
The Palace Regime is destroying scientific education. On the one hand, universities are being turned into high schools and distanced from science. On the other hand, high schools are being turned into imam-hatip schools (religious schools), as if science is being thrown out.
The Palace Regime is destroying scientific education. On the one hand, universities are being turned into high schools and distanced from science. On the other hand, high schools are being turned into imam-hatip schools, as if science is being thrown out. Meanwhile, due to the constantly deteriorating education system, the private school network is expanding. University graduates are facing unemployment. University students are facing all kinds of humiliation. Religious practices and police measures are being implemented together in universities. Students are being pushed into the arms of sects due to a serious housing problem, facing starvation, and millions of students, due to financial problems including housing issues, are forced to drop out of university despite having achieved the goal of higher education. Universities are not run by elected rectors, but by appointed rectors who have adopted a more police-style management approach. A trustee rector is equivalent to a police rector. Meanwhile, the entire education system, including high schools, is increasingly being turned into religious schools. Imams are being appointed to schools, and the police, imams, and drug gangs are taking over the management of schools, with students caught between these three groups. Education is being completely detached from science. As a result, those who can afford it are offered “private schools.” Just as private hospitals are offered to those who can afford them, private schools are offered to those who can afford them. Families who send their children to private schools are turning their children into “cash cows” in order to get their money’s worth.
Indeed, this whole context of oppression and violence is the product of the Palace Regime.
The capitalist system, which has no future of its own, is stealing the future of young people and wants to turn them into herds.
On the other hand, parallel to the privatization of universities, schools are being turned into shopping malls. Attempts to seize ODTÜ land are on everyone’s minds, as are attempts to destroy Boğaziçi.
While this policy of oppression and violence was being carried out with ease, on the assumption that students were apolitical, the student movement suddenly began its dignified resistance, demonstrating that it was not indifferent to social issues, and broke through the barricade set up in front of Istanbul University.
To claim that the students resisting at ODTÜ are “provoking” is, if anything, an assessment that could be made by the CHP, as an extension of the state. Students have the right to resist, and it is legitimate to resist the Palace Regime by any means necessary.
The Palace Regime has been rigging every election since 2015. The ballot box is being used to legitimize the Palace Regime. They have gradually appointed trustees to the country’s elected municipalities, particularly in Kurdish provinces, where fraud has not been effective. Students at Boğaziçi University and all university students, of course, know firsthand from their own lives and schools what a trustee is.
These are the factors that have contributed to the current situation. The final straw was the annulment of İmamoğlu’s diploma and his arrest, as well as the possibility of a trustee being appointed to the municipality. However, the issue is not only about İmamoğlu or the appointment of a trustee to the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality. It is about all the practices of the Palace Regime, including those we have not mentioned here.
The Palace Regime did not come to power through elections. We disagree with the CHP on this issue. The CHP tends to adopt a “the man won” policy based on election results. When Erdoğan says, “the ship has sailed” he is clearly referring to the fraud he has committed. In this country, theft has permeated every aspect of the state apparatus and reigns supreme in every stone and every room of the Palace. There are debates about diploma, while Erdoğan, whose own diploma is “lost,” is president or chairman. The entire population and all young people are being openly mocked. And all of this demonstrates that the Palace Regime is illegitimate. The CHP and other bourgeois parties claim that Erdoğan came to power through elections, but this is a lie. Erdoğan unilaterally declares the election results, and all bourgeois parties accept these results with their heads bowed. This is a farce worse than a primary school play.
Here, young people have declared that they will not get used to this process.
Now we faced a question: What should the student movement do?
The answer to this question can be given by first putting forward urgent demands and requests.
The student movement first broke through the barricades, then took to the streets, and then organized boycotts. Some faculty members participated in many of the student movement’s actions. So, is it enough to put forward current demands? Of course not. There is also the organizational aspect. We can start with the demands.
1
Students were arrested, beaten with batons, tear-gassed, etc. during these protests. This is clearly state violence. Those who tell students and young people not to “provoke” should apologize first. Özgür Özel should be among the first to apologize.
2
Those who ordered the attack on students and used violence against them must be brought to justice. This includes governors, provincial police chiefs, and the Minister of the Interior, because they are the ones who gave the orders.
3
All students who are detained or under arrest should be released, and any files opened against them should be destroyed. Their academic losses should be compensated.
4
The duties of trustees at all universities should be terminated. Instead of trustee rectors, etc., rectors, etc. should be elected. The practice of reappointing elected faculty members by the president, etc. should be ended. Elected rectors should rid universities of police presence. Universities are not police stations or intelligence centers. Without the police leaving universities, it is impossible to conduct scientific and academic education.
5
The trustees appointed to municipalities in any province or district of the country must hand over their duties to the elected mayors. If someone is to replace the mayors, that person must be elected by the municipal councils.
These are the demands of the first stage.
However, it is clear that if the student movement is not organized, even if these demands are met, a temporary situation will arise, and then a reactionary and counter-revolutionary state attack will come into play again.
This is precisely where the question of what kind of student organization is needed arises.
The March 19 resistance shows that the assertion that students are apolitical is unfounded. Ultimately, students are taking a direct political stance when they oppose the trusteeship policy, which is a social issue. Even though they are not organized, students have taken action on a political issue. When students say, “We can’t shelter ourselves,” they are actually making a direct connection to all economic and social issues.
Students’ problems can be grouped under three main topics:
Firstly, there are academic-democratic issues. This is reflected in the demand for “free and scientific education.” In other words, students are faced with outdated education, non-scientific education, and police-style management in universities. “Free and scientific education” is the main heading for all these academic-democratic demands.
Secondly, they are faced with the ongoing economic crisis in the country and its repercussions on education. One aspect of this is the privatization of education in line with neoliberal policies, turning students into customers. Another aspect is hunger, poverty, housing problems, etc. For this reason, students must oppose all educational policies of the capitalist system. The student youth must oppose all forms of bourgeois ideology, all kinds of discrimination, racial, sexual, religious, etc., and chauvinism.
The third heading is sensitivity to social issues. As with the trustee policy, the student movement must also be sensitive to workers’ resistance. A student at university must also oppose reactionary educational practices in high schools and middle schools.
Under these three topics, a student movement and student organization are necessary.
The Free University Movement must be developed and organized as a centralized and broad organization.
The Free University Movement is not just an organization within our Kaldıraç University. On the contrary, it is a broad organization. Therefore, it is a broad organization that will include students with different understandings and perspectives.
This organization must have three principles:
1- The Free University Movement is an organization centered around the fundamental issues of students. It must address academic issues as well as issues such as housing and food. Opposing private education or privatization in education is one of the indispensable stances of the Free University Movement (FUM). It is imperative to oppose the concept of private schools in high schools, elementary schools, universities, etc.
The separation of education from scientific foundations, the expulsion of science from elementary school, middle school, high school, and university, is a significant attack, and it is necessary to counter this attack with student-teacher-family solidarity. As an organization, FUM should be a joint organization of students based on this foundation.
Organizing education on the basis of “free and scientific education” is possible through the democratic management of universities. Universities cannot be managed by trustees. A trustee is a state agent. Academic independence means that the police must leave universities and that universities must be managed by elected deans and rectors. Students must be involved in these elections at every university. Students should have the right to vote through their representatives.
All these demands are academic-democratic demands.
If a student defends private education, then of course they have no place in FUM. Yes, FUM may not be a socialist organization. But anyone who supports the police-rector-trustee policy in schools, who is not in favor of free scientific education, who is not against private education, should of course not have a place in FUM.
2- The Free University Movement opposes all forms of ideology of the ruling class and the bourgeoisie, and of course it has a clear stance on this issue. For example, it is unthinkable for a fascist to be a member of the FUM.
Yes, the FUM is a broad and central student organization. But just as someone who does not oppose private schools or paid education cannot be part of the FUM, similarly, those who do not oppose neoliberal policies, chauvinism, all forms of degradation, and sexual, racial, color, sectarian, etc. discrimination cannot find a place in the ranks of the FUM.
Just as FUM supports free and scientific education, it also opposes all forms of discrimination, racism, chauvinism, sexism, sectarianism, etc.
3- FUM cannot turn a blind eye to social issues. By its very nature, FUM must be sensitive to social issues. Every crisis affects students, and every social issue has an aspect that resonates with young people.
This means that the student movement, by its very nature, must be part of the struggle against the system due to academic and democratic issues, the need to oppose neoliberal policies, and sensitivity to social issues.
Of course, FUM is a broad organization that includes all students who accept these principles, regardless of their different perspectives and ideologies.
The organization of this student movement should include the broadest possible student base. But, of course, it should be based on its own principles. The bourgeois parties will, of course, have their extensions within the student youth. But these sections will already be distant from the FUM.
Every revolutionary movement, every leftist movement can develop its own organization, and indeed does so. But the mass student movement is different from this; it is a structure in which everyone can participate. The FUM should be based on the organization of elected representatives at the department and faculty level within the university, from which the university organization should be developed, and from there, the organization should be developed nationwide.
There is no doubt that finding the right forms and methods for this is the task of students in general, and our student comrades in particular. Without imposing any particular form, a path should be followed that pays attention to the development of methods based on struggle and resistance.
Revolutionary students should be the organizers of this process themselves.
