30 Mayıs 2024 Perşembe

[Realist Theory of Ideologies]

 Mahmut Boyuneğmez

“The main task of the theory of ideologies must be to explain how ideas are born or take root in the minds of those who hold them.”[1]

“(The term ideology-MB) is very reasonable because it does not presuppose anything doubtful or unknown (...) Its meaning is very clear to everyone.”[2]


Is it possible to build a materialist/scientific theory of ideologies? In 1796, Antoine Destutt de Tracy used the term “ideology” in the sense of “the science of ideas”.[3]  In this way, Tracy identifies a historical problem, the problem of creating a “science of ideas”, in a utopian way. The reason why this identification is utopian is that in Tracy's time, social development had not yet reached a level that would enable a realistic and comprehensive understanding of how ideologies are conditioned by social relations. Tracy's utopian endeavor remains a dimension of the liberal ideological struggle of the bourgeoisie against religious/metaphysical ideas. Historical materialism, as an ideology that assimilated/transcended utopian, progressive, pragmatic and realist ideas before its foundation and whose development continues, is the first comprehensive step towards the creation of a realist theory of ideologies. In the age we live in, realist analyses can be made on the formation, classification, functions and modes of functioning of ideologies[4], and predictions can be made about the forms they may take in the future. This is so because a realist/scientific analysis of a problem/issue only emerges when the potential for establishing control/dominance over the reality under study begins to emerge in practice. If it has become possible to establish control and domination over the reality, process, phenomenon, object, etc. under scrutiny, at least in some aspect, then a realist/scientific abstraction can be made in this respect. This is, in fact, the elimination of alienation.

To avoid confusion, we prefer not to use the term “ideology” here in the sense of “the science of ideas”. Instead, we suggest the term “realist theory of ideologies” (RTI).

Social human activity has two dimensions: The ideal dimension and the material dimension. The ideal/ideological and material dimensions of social activities that constitute social relations are inseparable and complement each other. In each social activity/practice, emotions, behavioral patterns, beliefs and ideas are formed on the one hand, and material cultural products are created as a result of the transformation of nature through human labor on the other. In other words, while people create material products in social activities, they also create ideological/ideal creations through their mental activities. The ideal/ideological and material dimensions of social practices together constitute culture. The ideal and material dimensions of culture exist as practices and are objective.

Ideologies/ideas exist as a dimension of culture. For example, “gods” exist as ideas that appear in people's consciousness within the totality of certain ideological practices. While a scientific investigation into whether the idea of God has a counterpart in objective reality is not possible, it is clear that the idea of God is formed within certain social practices and has an existence as an ideal or ideological dimension of these practices. In other words, religious affects and ideas are produced and reproduced every day as a dimension of social practices within objective reality.

The entire world of ideas/ideologies, including metaphysical ideas, emerges as neuro-physiological processes in the minds of individuals in the determination of social practices and relations. These processes generate affects, ideas, beliefs, thinking and cognitive processes, etc. The production of ideological affects, behaviors and thoughts in people depends on the existence and state of social relations. In other words, what is decisive is the positioning and interaction of people within social relations. What emerges are ideological elements as mental processes.

The ideological and material dimensions of culture coexist in economic activities, artistic and literary production, political activities, etc. There is no example where these two dimensions of human activity are separated. When people produce their material lives, they also produce ideals/ideologies. This is why, for example, even the act of speaking has an ideological dimension as it is loaded with meanings, while at the same time it corresponds to a change and a process within the physically objective reality.

It is characteristic of naturalistic materialism to contrast ideas with material things and not to consider ideas as a component of objective reality. In the social world of human beings, ideas/ideologies have an objective existence. For example, the idea of God is present in certain rituals and practices, in affect, in thinking and interpretation processes, in behavior. They are embedded in practices that are lived and re-lived every day as a component of different cultures in different human communities. The ideal dimension of vital activities, i.e. the dimension of ideologies, is an objective component of social reality.

I. Formation of ideologies

Ideologies are the product of human mental activity. This is the subjective aspect of the formation of ideologies. Mental activity includes processes such as perception, imagination, symbolization, design, belief, comprehension, understanding, abstract thinking and emotion. In addition to ideas, perceptions, emotions, designs, conceptions, values, beliefs and principles also participate in the formation of ideologies. Ideologies are expressed in ideas when they are systematized and turned into doctrines.

Ideologies are adopted by people when they activate the mental/psychological processes they need. People become attached to ideologies because ideologies fulfill functions such as providing meaning, justification, solace, identity, and psychological coping with problems. Ideologies are largely formed through the systematization of ideas and behavioral patterns that people spontaneously develop in their daily lives. These ideas, emotions, behavioral patterns and beliefs that people form in their daily lives can be called proto-ideological motifs.[5] In fact, these proto-ideological motifs are part of what Gramsci calls “the common sense, the spontaneous philosophy of the masses”. Common sense has good sense components of a realist nature as well as religious, nationalist and other metaphysical components. Voluntary intellectual productions and deliberate distortions by ideologues add to these motifs. Identical symbolic forms (values, concepts; e.g. rights, justice, freedom, goodness, humanity, homeland, etc.) articulated in the common sense are stamped with different meanings by different ideologies. It is possible for certain ideas, forms of perception, modes of behavior and emotions to form an ideological formation if there is a unity of meaning. It is not possible to label individual ideas or feelings as “ideologies”. Although mental processes are active in the formation and reproduction of ideologies, not all psychological/mental processes are ideological in character. More specifically, it is wrong to identify ideologies with the psychology of individuals. Therefore, although some forms of thinking, such as delusions, which are also seen in mental illnesses, may participate in the production of metaphysical ideologies, the findings of these illnesses observed in individuals do not constitute an ideology. The forms of perception, affect, thinking and behavior that people share in common, which have a certain semantic unity, constitute a specific ideological formation.

It is the collective experience of these forms of affect, modes of behavior and ways of thinking that associate certain emotions, behaviors and ideas, giving them a common meaning and thus playing an important role in making them ideological. Ideologies do not exist without the practices of a given community that produce shared meanings, affective sympathies and norms of collective behavior. Rituals, prayers, ceremonies, stereotyped and periodically repeated behaviors such as standing in silence and singing the anthem, and the collective intellectual activities of intellectuals are examples of ideological practices. It is known that political movements are guided by ideologies, but at the same time the practice of politics is an ideological practice that reproduces ideologies.

At this point, we can give one or two examples for clarification. For example, someone whose relative dies feels sad. This is a normal emotion observed in almost every society.[6]  However, through practices such as funeral ceremonies where the deceased are coded as “national martyrs”, emotions such as sadness, anger and hatred are molded into a nationalist ideological mold, and a certain nationalist sensitivity is created in society by giving these emotions a meaning and direction. Again, for example, religiosity has the function of giving strength and patience to accept deprivations and endure against unfavorable life conditions. Religions give a different meaning to failures, illnesses, pain and distress. The troubles encountered can be understood as “God testing his servant”. The sharing of these feelings and ideas by others, the formation of collective sympathy and solidarity, and the practices that produce and reproduce these feelings, behaviors and ideas are important in the transformation of individual religiosities into a collective ideology.

It is not “ideological practices” that produce certain ideas, norms of behavior, values, etc. within an ideological formation. These practices are already the ways in which certain ideologies exist. Not only these “ideological practices”, but all kinds of practical activities that are important in social life ensure the production and reproduction of (proto-) ideological motifs. In the formation of ideologies, the position of people in social relations and the practices they carry out  under the determination of this position (habitus) constitute an objective basis. This is the objective aspect in the formation of ideologies. It is this social objective basis that determines the characteristics of ideologies. For example, when individuals are rewarded for their personal achievements in a social formation dominated by the capitalist mode of production, certain values of liberalism are produced. When individuals with different conditions and opportunities compete, “win or lost” competition arises between them. When an individual in such a social environment is rewarded for running faster than others, for getting higher grades in exams, for working harder than his/her co-workers, this helps to produce in himself/herself and those around him/her the idea that individualism and “win or lost” competition are healthy. However, in socialism, which is a sub-stage of communism, competition and rewarding do not lead to individualism, but to creativity and participation in social progress. This is also the case when liberal democratic participatory practices produce in citizens the illusion that they are “self-governing” or “free” to determine their own future, and when the miserable practices of the “heartless social/material world” create a “spiritual/religious world” in which to take refuge and find solace.[7]

The practice of production of material life is the sine qua non condition, the basic or central element of social existence. The production process is not a technical process, but a practice that conditions the functioning of other social relations, practices and institutions and constitutes the basis for their existence. In the process of production, people engage in hierarchical organization, develop mechanisms of domination in the workplace and produce ideological motifs. Relations of production have never been purely economic relations in any period of history; they are also relations of power and domination. The practice of production, and therefore its relations, conditions other social relations and practices (their superstructures as patterns of organization and functioning) and fulfills the function of the basic or ultimate source that shapes them, through mechanisms and processes that have become increasingly complex in the history. The reproduction of labor forces is ensured through practices in the state, ideological and cultural dimensions of society, in addition to economic ones. Without hegemonic tools (Gramsci), one cannot talk about the reproduction of labor forces in a capitalist social formation. Among these instruments is the culture industry (Horkheimer and Adorno).

“Social life is essentially practical” (Marx). Practices in social life and the relations that are formed through these practices are ideological practices, scientific practices, artistic practices, law-forming practices, political practices, social relations within the state, relations between peoples, relations between genders, relations between states, etc. The mental products of these social relations and practices are ideologies, aesthetic ideologies, scientific ideas, rules of law, racist, sexist, colonialist/mandatory ideological motifs, etc. The idea that these mental products have independent existence, that they appear to be the primary determining conditions of people's new practices, is the result of an inversion and illusion. However, every form of social relation or every type of practice, in interaction with other social relations and practices, is decisive in the formation of these products. Within the totality of social relations, disproportionate/unequal developments are also observed.

Whether one is a writer, an artist, an architect, a politician, a philosopher, etc., people may think that the ideas/ideologies they hold constitute their practices, and thus that their ideas create concrete material products. However, practices of production, cultural practices, social relations within the functioning of the state, political practices and all other social practices lead to the production and reproduction of ideas/ideologies and to the existence of institutions, in addition to concrete material products. It is true that people are driven to action by their ideologies; that they regulate relations of production and social life practices by using the rules of law they have written down; that people who ensure the functioning of state institutions intervene in many areas of social life through various mediations, and so on. However, it cannot be said that mental products such as ideologies, scientific ideas, aesthetic ideologies, written rules of law, and state institutions exist and function on their own. The material elements of civilization, such as machines and works of art, are bequeathed to the future. People pass on their knowledge, uninformed beliefs and ideologies to new generations through education and training, or through writing. However, without directly transmitted practices, material goods and beliefs, knowledge and ideologies cannot be used by new generations.[8]

The fact that some ideas do not lose their validity over the centuries is the result of the fact that the practices that produced those ideas continue to exist in their essence or are repeatable today. Since ideas, ideologies, scientific theories, aesthetic ideologies, etc. have the possibility of being transmitted to future generations through written/verbal educational means, it seems as if these ideas, ideologies, theories give a direction to their practices and activities, and provide a basis for their activities. Indeed, they are transmitted to the future in these ways, and they have certain functions; but for them to function in the future, there must be new practices similar to the old practices that produce and reproduce them. This is the underlying mechanism by which values, morality, all kinds of ideas, all ideologies, theories, scientific ideas, written law, seem to have an independent existence. This is the way historical materialists conceive of the intellectual products of human beings. This point of view dominates all of Marx's works, especially his The German Ideology.

As for political ideologies... What distinguishes political ideologies from one another is their social function. What gives a common meaning to certain ideas, feelings and behaviors and gives them a unique function in the social sphere are the class interests, needs, wishes and aspirations of the people who reproduce these ideologies. In short, it is the struggle between classes and class positioning that characterizes political ideologies. Classical liberalism reflects the class interests of the bourgeoisie. The living conditions and habitus of the oppressed classes provide a favorable environment for the formation of religious and nationalist ideological motifs. These ideologies are an obstacle to a realistic understanding of the living conditions of the working people. Their counter-revolutionary and therefore anti-communist function is that they reflect social reality in a different, distorted way than it actually is. Religions and nationalism prevent the development of consciousness in the direction of feeling, sensing, comprehending and overcoming the labor-capital antagonism. The ideological formations suitable for the life experiences and habitus of urban “dry-skinned” skilled laborers and professionals are mostly non-integrated, small-scale ideologies such as feminism, Kemalism reduced to secularism, environmentalism, animal rights advocacy, to give an example from today's Turkey. These micro-ideological orientations embraced by “non-governmental organizations” include Freemasonry, and all kinds of philanthropy, made famous by slogans such as “kardelen ayşe”, “haydi kızlar okula”, “yüzyılın iyilik hareketi”.

It is the combination of these objective and subjective processes that constitute ideologies. The objective practical processes that constitute social life determine the subjective mental processes that constitute ideologies, and hence the characteristics of ideologies.

II. Classification of ideologies

Ideologies are classified into main groups such as religion, nationalism, liberalism and socialism.[9]  There are various ideologies within these main groups. Religion includes primitive religions such as totemism and Shamanism, polytheistic religions such as paganism and Hinduism, and monotheistic religions such as Judaism and Islam. Under the main group of nationalism, there are types of nationalism such as liberal nationalism, fascist nationalism, ethnic-cultural nationalism. Under the main group of liberalism, there are classical liberalism, modern liberalism, social democratic liberalism, neo-liberalism, etc. Based on this point, ideologies are generally subjected to a binary nomenclature, the first being the name of “type” and the second being the name of “genus”. There are similarities between different types of ideologies of the same genus in terms of their basic principles, beliefs or approaches.

The reason why many different types of ideologies have been produced in different societies, even within the same group, is the specificity of the social practices in which people live. Leaving these specificities aside, the fact that ideologies of the same kind have common basic characteristics is due to the fact that the people who produce these ideologies live in the same historical period or share social relations framed by the same mode of production. Within a given historical period, different types of religion, mystical beliefs and metaphysical ideas may have been produced in different societies, but they share common characteristics and ideological motifs marked by the social relations of that historical period. It is no coincidence, for example, that variants of fascism emerged in the period between the two world wars in the European societies of Italy, Germany, Spain and Portugal.

Due to the uneven development of societies and social relations, old and new ideologies coexist and interact within the same historical period. In the 19th and 20th centuries, during the formation of nation-states, nationalist ideologies emerged; their emergence at different times in different societies is a result of the uneven development in history. Moreover, as ideologies are reproduced, they undergo revision/reform and metamorphose in history with new or differentiated practices brought about by changing social relations.

To summarize, the similarities between different types of ideologies in the same group can be explained by the following factors:

i. Direct interactions between believers in ideologies of the same kind,

ii. The metamorphosis of one type of ideology into another type of ideology,

iii. The fact that people are in similar/essentially the same social relations, albeit in different societies,

iv. Mental reactions that are the product of the same/similar practices show similar characteristics.

Human relations with other human beings and with nature are in a state of development. History is in essence nothing other than this development. Progress in history is the result of the opposition and contradiction between progressive and preservative tendencies, the combination of vectors of order and change. Human intellectual production should also be divided into two categories: ideas that maintain/reproduce the status quo and order, and ideas that enable change and participate in the process of change. These are rightly and commonly referred to as right/reactionary ideologies and left/progressive ideologies, respectively.

At first glance, it may seem absurd and misleading to consider the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity and other scientific theories and views as ideologies in the classical sense. Again, it may be considered objectionable to examine science on the same plane as, for example, nationalism or a type of religion. However, when we question what “knowledge” is as the basic building block of the sciences, it will be seen that science is also an intellectual production that we use to interpret the natural and social world. Although it should be recognized that there is a distinction between “knowledge” and “metaphysical belief” and that this distinction should be adopted, “knowledge” is primarily a “belief”. Neo-positivists' definition of knowledge as “documented and verified belief” should not be considered wrong.[10]  There are, of course, features that distinguish scientific ideas/theories from ideologies in the usual sense and should not be ignored. But this should not obscure the fact that scientific knowledge, ideas and theories are also intellectual products used to interpret the world.

Scientific ideas can also be used for reactionary purposes, but they are generally progressive. Natural and social sciences reduce human dependence on natural and social processes. Science enables us to exercise ever-increasing control over these processes. Through the natural and social sciences, people change the natural and social world. Communist ideology, which today represents the progressive aspect of class antagonism and contradiction, is also a revolutionary/progressive ideology. The ideas of communist ideology are also realizable. In the revolutionary process in which communist ideas are realized, humanity's control over social relations increases. We call “realist theories and ideologies” those theories and ideologies which contain ideas that are realizable and which, when realized, enable humanity to exercise sovereignty over various processes/sections/aspects of natural and social reality. These theories/ideologies demonstrate a correct understanding of the “logic”/mechanisms of reality, or the perspectives of these theories/ideologies coincide with the trend of change in reality. In other words, realist theories/ideologies contain scientific knowledge, as well as beliefs/thoughts with high truth value that are based on or compatible with this knowledge.

In their intellectual dimension, natural and social sciences, Marxism, historical materialism and communism are realist theories and ideologies. Today, in general, realism in the natural sciences is more advanced than realism in the social sciences. Marxism is an important theoretical step towards the establishment of control and supervision over social processes, which realistically grasps the basic logic of the functioning of social reality in change, which is verified in the process of transformation/revolution in social reality. The realistic comprehension of social phenomena/processes by all people, at least at the level of common sense, will be realized in the communist period of history.[11] This is possible only through a collective organization that embraces society/societies with all its members, through the equation of the state with the social organization[12], and through planned social engineering activities that ensure collective control and sovereignty over social structures (i.e. organization and functioning). Historical-dialectical materialism is a realist philosophy, first, because it is compatible with scientific knowledge (natural and social sciences) and abstracted from the sciences, and second, because it opens up to communism. This characterization does not imply that the intellectual content of materialism is realizable, but that as a philosophical attitude it adopts the realism of scientific ideas and realism in general.

Reactionary/right ideologies refer to the pragmatic management, preservation and reproduction of social relations marked by class antagonism.

While in their early stages liberalism was a relatively progressive ideology and conservatism a relatively reactionary one, today these two ideologies, with all their variants, are ideologies of the reactionary order. They are the pragmatic ideologies of capitalist social formations. Pragmatic ideologies such as liberalism, social-democracy, Kemalism, the new right/neo-conservatism contain ideas that can be realized. In fact, these ideologies are the intellectual representations of political and economic practices that have been realized in the capitalist social order. Types of liberalism such as social liberalism, neo-liberalism, social welfare liberalism, social democracy, neo-con/new right ideology have been the intellectual expression of the dominance of social relations that have prevailed in the capitalist world over the past century. Social liberalism, social-democracy, Kemalism, neo-liberalism, etc. are pro-establishment, pragmatic ideologies that reflect the interests of the capitalist class with reference to the opposition/contradiction between labor and capital. The level of struggle/organization of the working class and the strength/weakness of real socialism are the main factors in the revision of bourgeois class ideologies and their passing through various stages.

The practicalization of the intellectual content of pragmatic ideologies of social order does not lead to fundamental changes in social relations. Only certain social relations are reorganized. This is what happened, for example, when the economic ideas of John Maynard Keynes inspired the macro-economic policies implemented in Western Europe after the Second World War. “Sciences” such as bourgeois political economy, political theory and sociological theories are partly realist insofar as they identify the essential mechanisms at work in the fields they study.

Religions, nationalism and fascism are based on metaphysical or unrealizable ideas and beliefs. These are also reactionary/right-wing ideologies. The function of these ideologies today is to maintain the existing social relations in the capitalist world. These ideologies serve the preservation and reproduction of the labor-capital antagonism.[13]  These ideologies can be called “metaphysical ideologies” based on their basic concepts such as God, devil, demon, “holy spirit”, reincarnation, race, nation[14] and the beliefs woven around these concepts. If we recall Marx's famous “opium” analogy for religion, the emotions, ideas, dreams, principles of faith, beliefs, moral values, etc. within the scope of metaphysical ideologies do not eliminate the real cause of the “suffering” of those who suffer “pain” in exploitative social orders; they only prevent the perception of “pain”.

At this point, the question may arise: has nationalism not been a progressive and realizable ideology at times and places in the 20th century? In our view, the “nationalism of the oppressed peoples” is not always progressive in a self-confident way. The political principle of “the right of nations to self-determination”, which in the past was defended in order to weaken the imperialist front and create cracks in its structure, but in essence to support the struggle of the working class to seize political power in national liberation struggles, has become redundant today. In fact, a distinction must be made between the ideologies produced by past national liberation struggles, between “working class patriotism against imperialism” and “bourgeois/liberal nationalism in favor of integration into the imperialist hierarchy”. It is the socialist ideology that is progressive and realizes the idea of the “brotherhood of peoples”. Liberal nationalism, on the other hand, although the product of relatively advanced historical steps, represents the construction of an imaginary “nation consciousness”, which in turn is derived from economic, political, cultural/ideological practices as well as the practice of force. Nationalist ideas were not realized, what happened was the derivation of nationalist ideas through these practices. The progressivism of the liberal nationalisms of the past was relative and limited; today, all forms of nationalism are reactionary.[15]

We can also address other possible objections to our categorization. For example, one might ask, “When the territory of the Islamic Empire was being expanded, didn't the conquerors realize their idea of ‘jihad’?” Believers in Islam, of course, engage in concrete practices in their lives. For example, conquering neighboring lands is a social practice. The metaphysical thoughts they have during conquest can increase the courage of believers, make them valiant, etc. This is one of the functions of these thoughts. If the possibilities and conditions are ripe for a conquest, it can be done. For example, the level of development of military means, the recruitment of sufficient numbers of soldiers for battle, the technique of military organization, the conjunctural interests of the ruling class, social needs, etc. are among these material resources/conditions. The winners and losers of the battle reproduce their metaphysical beliefs such as “God helped us or not” through the practice. However, for both sides, it is not their metaphysical thoughts that are realized. The conquerors actually win the battle on their own behalf, not on behalf of God. Historical progress is made not by metaphysical ideas, but by the practices of the people who produce them.

Another objection can be raised with the question: “aren't the rules of Sharia law ideas put into practice?” Sharia law is a form of social relations that has been practiced in “Islamic” societies of the past. Today, it can be observed to a certain extent in countries such as Iran, Afghanistan before the invasion (and Afghanistan today). It is social relations and practices that produce and reproduce this law. Iranians, of course, began to regulate their social relations with the rules of Sharia law that were introduced after the 1979 counter-revolution. These written rules of law, which were produced centuries ago, have been reintroduced with some important changes. But this does not invalidate our argument that the metaphysical ideas that form the basic framework of religions are impractical. Without further ado, it should be noted that the rules of cleanliness within the scope of religions are also practicable. What needs to be seen is that both the law and the rules of cleanliness are elements that are articulated with religion.

The fascist state, the war against the Soviet homeland and the rest of Europe, the mass killings by the fascists, etc... This of course happened. Fascist regimes took place in Germany and Italy, the two weakest links in Europe at the time, second only to Russia. The fascist state is a type of capitalist state. But there is no doubt that ideas such as the racist ideal of Nazi fascism and the myth of the rebirth of the Roman Empire of Italian fascism were metaphysical in character. Fascism's conception of leaders, its view of history and the future, its racist and social-Darwinist views and other irrational ideas are metaphysical in character. But can anyone call fascism progressive? Even today, fascist ideology serves to preserve the opposition/contradiction between labor and capital.

There are also ideological movements that should generally be considered progressive in terms of their goals and articulations, but which have strategies that are inappropriate for the realization of some of their healthy and progressive ideas and goals. Feminism, environmentalism, anarchism belong to this category in our classification. They can be called “utopian ideologies”. Of course, these ideologies can be further subdivided into liberal feminism, socialist feminism, eco-socialism, eco-anarchism, eco-feminism, anarcho-communism, anarcho-capitalism and individualist anarchism. In this case, for example, liberal feminism, which advocates for women to have equal political rights with men, can be seen as a sub-branch of liberalism. Leaving aside their interrelationships and articulations with other ideologies, it is generally observed that these ideologies by themselves do not reveal how and by what means they will realize their goals. The ways they put forward are not capable of realizing their goals. These ideologies take into account some limited phenomena of social life, such as the authority/submission relationship, relations between the sexes and relations with the environment. In other words, the perceptions and insights of anarchists, feminists, environmentalists are selective; certain aspects of social relations attract their attention. The proponents of these ideologies often set out without even relating the phenomena that attract their attention to other phenomena, and without a holistic and realistic assessment of the intrinsic mechanisms of the functioning of society.

The progressive/regressive characteristics of ideologies vary according to historical periods. It should not be forgotten that a progressive ideology can acquire a reactionary-statutist character in the course of history. Political liberalism, for example, is a reactionary ideology of order in its current form of neo-liberalism, unlike in the past. Realizability is also a historically relative quality. Utopian ideologies, for example, have ideas that cannot be realized today. The main feature that characterizes utopian ideologies is that they do not realistically define the way in which the ideas and proposals they contain can be realized in the present and within the existing social conditions. Communism as an ideology and form of society, on the other hand, has the scope and material facilities/resources to mass the ungrounded progressive ideas of environmentalism, feminism and anarchism. It should also be recognized that in making abstractions, reductions are made. Our classification is a product of abstraction and idealization. Hybrid ideological forms exist in social life. Just as one ideology uses the motifs of another ideology, there is also transitivity between ideologies.

At this point, it would be useful to summarize our assessment. Instead of repeating what has been written, we can summarize it in a figure[16]:

III. Mechanisms of metaphysical and pragmatist ideologies

Three different general mechanisms involved in the production and reproduction of ideologies can be identified:

i. “Derivation”, where various life practices, including ideological and political practices, generate and reproduce ideological motifs,

ii. “Socialization”; the adoption of ideological motifs, values and beliefs by children, youth and even adults in socialization processes through mechanisms of identification and projective identification,

iii. “Learning”; intellectuals and other ideologists, while forming doctrines, also make efforts to disseminate them and teach them.

We call the mental mechanisms that are active in the formation and reproduction of ideologies “ideological mechanisms”. In the process of socialization, children and young people learn through experience how to perceive and interpret the events, natural and social phenomena and processes, and various phenomena they encounter, and how these affect their feelings and behaviors. In short, when and how ideological mechanisms are used is learned through experience. Organizations such as the family, school and media also play a role in the learning of ideological mental and behavioral patterns, and in the reinforcement of ideological motifs formed through experience in young people through education. As a result, people articulate the mental and behavioral ideological motifs they produce within the social practices they are involved in with various aspects/elements of the ideologies that have been produced and in use up to that point.

Presenting ideologies in their doctrinized form, making people comprehend them, teaching them with a voluntary effort are of secondary importance in their reproduction. Identification and projective identification mechanisms are more effective in the adoption of ideological mental and behavioral patterns. Identification is an important way of adopting ideological motifs and learning how to use ideological mechanisms in which situation. This mechanism means adopting the characteristics, feelings, behaviors, values and beliefs of other people and making them part of one's personality. In projective identification, on the other hand, children and young people project the characteristics and values they believe to exist in others, but which they have developed in their own minds, onto others, assume them in others and identify accordingly. Every human being goes through a maturation process from childhood to adulthood without any voluntary effort, using these mechanisms. Society's values, beliefs, various ways of thinking and behaving, the ideological mechanisms used, are adopted “involuntarily” through “identification”. Family members, teachers, artists, politicians, novel heroes, and any individual who is admired may have characteristics to be identified with.

What, then, are the “ideological mechanisms” involved in the production and reproduction, that is, the “derivation” of metaphysical and pragmatic ideologies in particular? Others can be added to these mechanisms we have identified, but here we can make a first assessment of these mechanisms.[17]

i. Repression (refoulement) and the relief of the repressed:

Moral and religious norms represent the repression of various human impulses and desires. In various religious practices, along with the repression mechanism, efforts to purify repressed impulses, memories and experiences are also observed. The suppression of various desires and impulses of individuals, which are considered “sinful” or reprehensible, requires a certain effort. For example, a clear equivalent of this effort in daily language is the phrase “tövbe (repentance) estağfurullah”. The distinction between harem and salam is also a practice indicating the suppression of sexual impulses. In religions, various practices have also developed as a way of relieving the anxiety caused by repressed impulses. Repressed impulses, desires, feelings, memories and experiences are prevented from creating anxiety through behaviors such as repentance, prayer and confession. In most cases, sacrifice is a step towards atoning for sins committed and is carried out by choosing an animal with certain characteristics as a “scapegoat”. The pilgrimage, which is observed in all major religions, fulfills functions such as breaking away from the structured/hierarchical modern social world, being together and in solidarity with other people on an equal status, and atoning for sins committed.

ii. Denial, introjection, projection:

Apologies, experiences that lead to feelings of shame or guilt can be repressed or denied in order to avoid anxiety. With denial, negative experiences are ignored and unrealistic assumptions, thoughts and beliefs are created instead. The mechanism of denial is important in the formation of delusions.[18]  Religions have delusional beliefs at their core. Many thoughts such as “God is up there; He sees what I do”, “everything happens with His permission” are actually delusional beliefs. However, because of their prevalence, these thoughts are not recognized as delusions.

Through the use of the introjection mechanism, metaphysical fictions such as the devil, genie, and magic can be declared as the delusional culprits of denied experiences and feelings of guilt. In such cases, the experiences are blamed on demon possession, bewitchment, and temptation. These are responsible for the temptations and negative experiences.

The perception of certain emotions, impulses and needs as if they were external or directed at the individual from outside, by being transferred or reflected to the outside, describes the projection mechanism. Individuals engage in projection when they detect the impulses and emotions they deny in others with a certain selectivity. Looking for faults in others, ridiculing them or blaming others for their faults also indicate the use of this mechanism. Through projection, individuals exonerate themselves. For example, it is a common behavior of bigots to constantly talk about the deterioration of morality, accuse others of being immoral and thus try to appear moral. Leaving aside the more “innocent” uses of the word[19], it is well known that people who are in pain, suffering, oppressed, subjected to evil, punished for their mistakes, and deprived, project goodness, mercy, and forgiveness onto the mystery called God, and ask him for these things, for mercy and protection.

iii. Displacement and undoing:

When an emotion or impulse is directed towards another object or person instead of the object or person to which it was originally directed, this constitutes displacement. Some of the processes that people carry out in order to neutralize an action that they have actually done or think they have done, to neutralize its effect or to consider it as if it had not been done, constitute undoing mechanism. There are many examples of mental/behavioral ideological motifs in which these mechanisms operate.

For example, the love for and fear of the father can be replaced by the symbolizations of “state father” and “god father”. Fear of “masters” is replaced by fear of God. Repeated use of the word “mashallah” to prevent a bad event, to prevent bad luck, and the behavior of tugging on the earlobe and hitting the wood are examples of behaviors in which the undoing mechanism is used. The feeling of being a sinner and the involuntary and repetitive recollection of sins committed (obsessions) can also be replaced by bodily being dirty and relieved by ablution with water. To get rid of obsessions, repetitive actions or words (compulsions) are used. This can be observed in praying the rosary, in the movements of prayers, in the repetition of prayers many times.

iv. Concretization:

Individuals tend to make situations that are unclear and intangible, that carry uncertainty about the future, and fears of uncertain origin, concrete and specific (“intolerance of ambiguity”). The uneasiness caused by complex and ambiguous situations, the distress and anxiety caused by unclear and intangible events, stimuli and objects are tried to be relieved by concretization. Concretization is used when believing in God, the devil, demons, when people are thought to be bewitched. When one is helpless in the face of social and natural forces and in uncertain situations where the future is unpredictable, one tries to find reasons to relieve the distress, fear and depression that arise and makes sense of them with metaphysical forces. In these cases, while fetishization and rationalization are performed, the concretization mechanism is also used.

v. Magical thinking:

It is a form of consciousness of early hunter-gatherers and contemporary primitive societies. Magical thinking is also observed in totemism. There are examples of magical thinking and perception in modern social life. The first examples that come to mind are the belief in the evil eye, the cure of the “aydaşlık” disease, the belief in “passing on the disease”, the expulsion of evil spirits/spirits by pouring lead, the belief that wishes will come true by tying rags to certain trees, the drinking of prayered water, the belief that rain will fall by praying for rain, the belief that praising a person will bring bad luck, the belief that many objects such as horseshoes, crosses, rabbit's foot, garlic, spike bundles are considered lucky/talismanic/sacred, and the belief that prayers will come true. Belief in psychics and witchcraft indicates belief in magic. Alchemy and astrology beliefs are also a form of magical thinking. With this way of thinking, positive/negative experiences are given meaning (signification). Since the causal connections between events are not comprehended, superficial similarities are identified and “imitation” is practiced with the understanding that “like begets like” (analogical-homeopathic mechanism). Another mechanism, “contact” (contagious) magic, is used to achieve desired results or to avoid bad situations. Desires and wishes are important in this mechanism. Daily practices carried out through trial and error give rise to magical thinking as the form of consciousness appropriate to this path. Coincidences encountered during empirical experiences are generalized, superficial analogies are made, superficial reasoning is applied by taking into account the apparent correlations, and ultimately causality is attributed to the observed correlations.[20]

vi. Fantasy-formation (day-dreaming):

Individuals may try to fulfill their wants, impulses, needs and longings that they cannot satisfy in the real world by dreaming. In this way, a resistance is developed against troubles, deprivations, inequalities and injustices. In religions, it is observed that people living in an unjust world dream of justice. “One day justice will prevail; the poor will be rewarded in the afterlife”, “everyone, rich or poor, will be held accountable one day”, in other words, the belief in the afterlife and the dream of heaven and hell can be given as examples. Nationalist ideas with the prefix “Pan”, the racist dream of Nazism, and the ideal of “Turan” are other examples that come to mind. These are reactions against the unfavorable living conditions brought about by the new era that is about to enter, combined with a mythic/romantic imagination of the past and a longing for the good old days. In utopian ideologies, too, it is observed that the fantasy-formation mechanism is active.

vii. Inversion[21], illusion[22] and fetishization:

With the fetishization mechanism, objects, persons or fictional entities are attributed properties, abilities and powers that they do not possess. Human emotions, impulses, abilities are externalized as “fetishes” through projection and concretization. Fetishes are perceived as possessing properties and powers that they do not actually possess.[23]  When the functioning mechanisms of the natural and social processes that dominate over people cannot be comprehended, and when control and sovereignty cannot be established over the processes (alienation), it is desired to avoid bad situations that will occur as a result of the processes. Fetishes are believed in the hope of avoiding a negative experience. The need to explain the occurrence of positive outcomes of processes is also met by believing in fetishes. In this mechanism, since the causal mechanisms that exist and function in reality cannot be comprehended, an imaginary correlation between fetishes and events is constructed. This perception is similar to the illusionary perception of those who watch a magician. Since the way in which illusions actually occur cannot be observed and comprehended, the actual results are attributed to the magician's “hocus pocus” or surreal abilities. Similarly, through their religious beliefs, people perceive their social life and natural phenomena as the blessings of fetishes, when in reality they are the soil on which fetishes thrive. An analogy can therefore be drawn between fetishization and the “camera obscura” device (Marx). In fetishization, the real relationship between fetishes and humans is seen as an imaginary relationship inverted in the mind.[24]

Gods are fetishes. Human qualities such as compassion, kindness, benevolence, protection, sparing, punishing when necessary are “alienated” (Feuerbach), externalized and attributed to mysterious entities. Again, emotions and traits such as evil, hatred, and anger are projected in the form of entities such as devils and demons. Totems, mythological heroes, prophets, saints, sect and cult founders, temples/places of worship, objects such as crosses and horseshoes are other examples of fetishes. Political leaders can also be fetishized. Another example of fetishization observed in daily life is when working people who are impoverished and exploited by their masters/bosses believe, in an inverted or “upside down” way, that people who enrich and feed their parasites give them jobs and food.

As in fascist nationalism, it can be said that the fetishization mechanism is also effective in the belief that there are superior races and the glorification of ethnicity. Views in which Aryan, Germanic and Nordic races are considered superior races, “white-black” racial discrimination, apartheid racial discrimination, Ku Klux Klan racism, pan-slavism, Turanism, anti-Semitism, eugenics, etc... Believers in all these views glorify and fetishize a nation, race or ethnicity that they believe to exist and are attached to. Again, “nation” is an imaginary fetish created by people who believe that they constitute a nation. By adopting a “national” identity and consciousness, people with different class interests believe that they constitute one and the same nation. The adoption of “national” unity and the defense of the permanence of social order are reinforced by symbols such as flags and anthems. In the formation of “national” identity, “national” rituals and cultural/ideological practices are effective.

viii. Symbolization:

Symbols are indexes, signs, icons, symbols that, apart from other uses (in mathematics, art, etc.), also function in the production and reproduction of ideologies and to which certain meanings are attributed. Symbols are signs with metaphorical/semantic meanings, to which many meanings are attributed by society, with no natural connection between them and the meanings they refer to. Flags, anthems, badges, crests, certain colors, clothing, hair and beard styles, hand and finger signs are the first examples of symbols that come to mind. Symbols evoke the values and beliefs associated with them and reinforce feelings of belonging, commonality and solidarity. Forms of discourse and jargon, clichés, proverbs and idioms, sentences with connotations, myths and even anecdotes are tools for symbolic meaning transfer, which have functions in expressing and transmitting ideologies and manipulating masses. Therefore, considering this aspect, language also has the function of encoding ideological messages/meanings. Writing and astrology were also born as products of symbolic classification. Astrology can be considered a kind of micro-scale ideology or an ideological belief. Symbolization has a function in the formation and reproduction of all ideologies.

ix. Inappropriate transfer[25]:

With this mechanism, concepts, functioning mechanisms, scientific laws and principles are handled at a level of abstraction (level of generality-Ollman) where they are not valid, or they are moved to a field of reality where they are not valid and made functional there. For example, social phenomena and processes are explained by modeling the phenomena and processes that take place in nature. People's innate biological characteristics are seen as the causes of social phenomena.

In the understanding of social-Darwinism adopted by fascism and influenced by liberalism, “inappropriate transfer” is made. This idea, which can be summarized as “survival of the fittest”, bases the existence of human beings on individual struggle and competition among them. The struggle between individuals is thought to punish the lazy and incompetent and reward the hardworking and talented. According to Hitler, for example, “victory belongs to the strong and death to the weak”; war is the immutable law of life. In Nazi Germany, communists, workers and Jews were mass murdered, while the physically and mentally disabled were first sterilized and then systematically killed between 1939 and 1941.

In classical liberalism's conception of “natural rights”, it is argued that individuals have “the rights to life, liberty and property” (John Locke), while the phenomenon of private property is treated as a natural fact alongside other rights. Again, in liberalism, the innate differences of human beings are thought to give rise to deep social inequalities between them. It is said that human nature is characterized by selfishness, competition, the desire to possess, etc. and it is believed that these are eternal. When it is preached that individuals participate in production to meet their natural needs such as eating, drinking, dressing, shelter, heating, etc., leaving aside the level of development that production, a social phenomenon and process, has reached under the capitalist mode of production, a kind of “inappropriate transfer” is made. This view, which can be put forward even today, is the “Robinsonian” understanding of classical liberalism. It is said that man is hungry, so he must satisfy his hunger by working. He is cold, affected by weather conditions, so he must make an effort to stay warm, clothed and sheltered. Here, it is not seen that the way to fulfill needs such as eating and drinking, dressing, warmth and shelter is social, that the fulfillment of these needs is determined by social relations, and that social relations have developed throughout history. However, it is clear that today these needs are not met for billions of people, or are met in an unqualified and inadequate way, and for a very small group of people they are met through ultra-luxurious consumption.

Another example of an inappropriate transfer mechanism is the approach in the imperialist-capitalist world system, which ignores the social conditions in which the peoples and working classes of the countries under dependency live, and explains the occurrence of diseases only in terms of factors such as harmful microorganisms, toxic substances, the work environment and environmental conditions. Diseases are caused by heredity, deteriorating physiology, natural factors, etc... All these factors are just “things”. It is true that these factors are detrimental to health when individual people are taken into account. However, this approach ignores the social relations that create these factors and provide the environment for them to cause diseases. Yet today, some diseases cause deaths and permanent sequelae, even though they are preventable; no effort is made to eradicate certain “factors”, even though they can be eradicated. The poor living conditions of working people are also presented as if they were an unchangeable natural condition, as if they were fate. As a result, the fact that capitalist relations of production and imperialist relations of domination/subordination between countries have a character that harms the health of working people and oppressed peoples is covered up. Again, for example, while the causative agent of the “Black Death”, which caused mass deaths in Europe in the past, is seen as the “plague” germ; while the massive deaths that occurred with the discovery of the American continent are attributed to “smallpox” and other infectious diseases, the historical/social conditions that enabled the emergence and spread of these factors in certain geographies can be ignored.[26]

x. Rationalization:

During the operation of this mechanism, people treat the results of their own experiences, social events, historical processes, with a narrow abstraction/understanding and at an inappropriate “level of generalization”. The interactions and changes in social relations, the processes of different tendencies, cannot be grasped with the rationalization mechanism used in abstraction. Causality is not seen as a chain of interactions in a process. In the search for causes, excuses are found, inappropriate or metaphysical justifications are made, and the need for explanation is satisfied, thus legitimizing the events and the results. In cases where the natural and social conditions that lead to negative outcomes cannot be changed individually, and individuals are rendered powerless to the extent that they cannot intervene in the processes and causes of the problems they experience (alienation), this mechanism is used to find excuses, justify oneself, find justifications and meet the need to explain the situation.

Justifications can be constructed at the individual level. In this case, individuals adopt the presupposition that a social regulation, initiative or practice is universal and equally accessible to all. In other words, the individual thinks by placing himself or herself in a society of individuals with common and natural human characteristics. Individual situations are perceived and understood in a narrow temporal and spatial abstraction, isolated from the social relations that actually exist. The individual justifies his or her experiences of success or failure by attributing them to his or her personal characteristics, superiority or incompetence. In this way, inequalities intrinsically related to class position (habitus) are obscured. This form of rationalization is observed in liberalism.

For example, with the rationalization mechanism, individual traits such as industriousness/laziness, boldness/wimpiness, frugality/spendthriftness are considered as justifications for positive/negative experiences. These are considered in conjunction with the assumption that everyone has equal opportunities and conditions. In these cases, the organic relationships between individuals and social conditions are not recognized, and individual characteristics and social conditions are inappropriately conflated with the assumption that they are unrelated.

Justifications are also made with idols/fetishes. In attempts to explain historical phenomena/processes and social functioning with heroism, the charisma of leaders or rare personal abilities, metaphysical powers, the rationalization mechanism is seen to operate in tandem with fetishization. In these cases, historical events are explained in terms of apparent and easily identifiable reasons. These rationalizations may be the unique talents, superior intelligence, super-intuition, great courage, or mistakes, stupidity, incompetence, anger, hatred, etc. of some individuals, or the unique heroism, sacrifice, zealousness, etc. of the masses in situations such as war. In the resulting conception, history is considered to be the product of the superior qualities or mistakes of people with genius; it is believed that many epics or disasters have taken place in history. Such rationalizations can be seen in idealist and romantic conceptions of history, in the state ideology's perspective on history, and in fascism's and nationalism's understanding of leadership and the “nation”. An example from recent history is the explanation or association of the invasion of Iraq with the character traits of G. W. Bush. While explaining historical phenomena through the idolization of sultans, kings, pharaohs, political leaders and founders of religions, rationalizations are made through fetishization. Of course, the rationalization of historical or current events is also done by invoking the name of the gods, the “greatest” fetishes.

Another type of justification is the mystical one. The fact that a realist abstraction that reveals the mechanisms of interaction in social relations and natural processes and the causal chaining of events cannot be realized because the level of historical development does not allow it, or even if the level of historical development does allow it, the practical inadequacy and lack of knowledge that prevents individuals from adopting such an abstraction is important at this point. Mystical/metaphysical beliefs are passed down from generation to generation through traditions and customs and form a social habit.

Fate/destiny, luck, good luck, misfortune, fortune/unluck, belief in the evil eye, demon possession, mystical/religious beliefs in which angels/totems are considered responsible for deaths and natural events are examples of mystical justification. While objects considered lucky or talismanic are accepted as metaphysical justifications for positive events, concretization is also made. In cases where the factors such as an infectious disease brought by a foreigner coming to a small community such as a family, clan or village are unknown, the belief in the “evil eye” develops as a metaphysical justification for the disease. In this mystical belief, which is formed as a result of such situations, it is also observed to be concretized with an object such as an “evil eye bead” or with practices such as painting on children's faces.

Metaphysical rationalizations have also been made in scientific thought. In the history of science, the philogiston view, the understanding of aether, astrology and many ideas of alchemy are metaphysical rationalizations.

xi. Universalization:

Universalization is the belief that ideas that are specific to a certain historical period and represent the interests of the ruling class of that period are eternal and generally valid for everyone. In non-realist ideologies, the historical relativity of ideas and emotions, their specificity to a period/era and their class affiliation are set aside. This isolation can be intentional or, in many cases, an illusion brought about by the process of perspectival abstraction, of seeing from a specific class positioning within the relations of social domination.[27]  In this illusion, perspectival one-sidedness is absolutized. Through this mechanism, ideas, emotions and beliefs are given generality, trans-historicity, eternity and timelessness, absoluteness and general validity. The particular is universalized by using one or more of the processes of generalization, eternalization, absolutization, naturalization together. In militants and ideologues, universalization is accompanied by vital manifestations such as devotion to their ideas with great enthusiasm and passion, fanaticism, asceticism, puritanism.

In the historical period when the bourgeoisie was progressive in Europe, the mechanism of universalization was important in the formation of political liberalism produced by intellectuals. Concepts and principles such as freedom, equality, fraternity, justice, secularism, the rule of law and human rights were considered valid, universal and absolute for everyone, and the defending them was believed to be justified.

Fascism, great monotheistic religions and morality also universalizes the commandments, dogmatic beliefs, mystical thoughts and feelings. Their beliefs are “beyond doubt” for those who believe in them and must be accepted “without question”. While scientific laws and revolutionary-realist ideas are “universal” within certain limits, “universalized” ideas are principles of “faith”, not beliefs with high truth value.

xii. Reaction-formation:

This mechanism operates under conditions where the mechanisms of class domination and oppression are in operation and the organized uprisings of the exploited are suppressed by the ruling class. In the absence of repression by means of coercion and legal instruments, there can be no talk of the functioning of the reaction-formation mechanism. Reaction-formation is a reactionary mental mechanism that exploited people develop under the unfavorable, increasingly aggravated conditions and conditions of oppression in which they find themselves. These conditions and circumstances are the product of the antagonistic nature of inter-class relations, especially relations of production. Working people who are oppressed, despised, made miserable, ignorant and diseased develop examples of passive resistance, solidarity and sympathy against these conditions in the form of sects. The spiritual world, in other words, moral and religious values, beliefs, emotions, thoughts, behaviors, formed through the counter-reaction mechanism, provide a piece of peace and happiness to the exploited and alleviate their suffering. Again, in a society that has been occupied, whose future is darkened or where social decay is rampant, there is a reactionary tendency to cling to a nationalist identity, a sense of protecting one's dignity and being a nation together.

Of course, exploitative masters, bosses, politicians and bureaucrats also feel and perceive the cruelty, lack of compassion, indifference, destructiveness and lack of conscience in the social world created by their initiatives and practices. Their giving food and clothing to the working poor, giving scholarships to the children of working people who cannot study, building schools, organizing various campaigns on these issues and establishing foundations/associations, in short, their feelings of philanthropy and compassion are ways of relieving their conscience, cleansing themselves of the unscrupulousness imposed on them by their objective class position, and absolving themselves of their responsibility in the formation of adverse social conditions and circumstances. Here, too, the reaction-formation mechanism is at work. Doing good deeds and charity to others in a demonstrative manner, receiving praise and blessings in this regard soothes the consciences of those who are “instrumental in this good deed”. When these ways do not have meanings such as tax evasion or vote hunting for them, they are also ways of legitimizing their social existence.

Those who preach “tolerance” to the exploited, those who, through various hegemonic instruments and institutions, instill in the children of the working people values such as “one should not eat when the neighbor is hungry”, “be grateful for the food I have, there are others who cannot find it”, religious leaders of sects, multi-millionaire socialites who put on charity shows, and the like, all of these tell of a “hypocrisy”. On one side of the coin, there are the harsh social realities that are the product of antagonistic social relations and that the working people face, the opposition of a prosperous bourgeoisie to a working people in misery. On the other side there is the consolation and deception of the working people, “opiated” with unrealizable hopes, surreal dreams, fanciful designs, false promises, by various temporary initiatives and deceptive aid of the money men. Ideological motifs such as religious precepts, most moral values, pity and compassion for the poor, philanthropy, etc. serve as a “fog” covering the perception of social antagonism and realities.[28]

IV. Realist ideological motifs and communist ideological struggle

Not only theories such as Marxist social science and natural science contain realist ideas. In everyday life, people produce realist ideological motifs as well as metaphysical, pragmatic, utopian ideological motifs in the social practices in which they engage. The heterogeneous, fragmented and inconsistent unity they form can be called common sense (Gramsci). The production of realist ideas does not necessarily require a thorough and in-depth understanding of the mechanisms of reality or the scientific method. When an understanding of an event, object, process or problem is formed to the extent that it is sufficient to establish control over it, it means that realist thinking is being practiced. If the problems encountered in daily life are not left unresolved or postponed, realist thinking is effective in their practical solution.

So, what kind of mental mechanisms are effective in the formation of realist thoughts in daily life? The first ones that come to mind are: Curiosity, scepticism about appearances, the need to investigate/examine and to find and explain the underlying causes of events, practical and troubleshooting thinking, establishing simple but verifiable cause-effect relationships, creating relationships that can be mastered, comprehending multifaceted relationships and interactions, being aware of change, developing hypothesis-like ideas and testing them in practice by means of induction-deduction-retroduction, analogy, comparison, drawing analogies... A holistic and in-depth evaluation of the events and processes encountered in their various aspects, especially their comprehension/explanation with the help of already known scientific laws, will make the realism in the ideas formed multidimensional and more holistic.

Even proverbs such as “where there is no fire, there is no smoke”, “he who pays the piper blows the whistle”, “a vineyard if you work, a mountain if you don't” contain motifs of realist thought. In their daily practices, people can even grasp the patterns of relationship/interaction, formation, change, progress of dialectical logic. For example, isn't the proverb “droping by droping becomes a lake” the realization that quantitative accumulation does not result in a “big drop”?... What is important and must be seen here is that the idea that the working people are incapable of producing ideas other than reactionary ideological motifs, and that it is very difficult or impossible to convey communist ideology to them, is null and void. Communist ideological themes can be articulated with realist ideas and realist ideological motifs that working people produce in their daily lives. More importantly, communists can organize activities that touch and relate to the daily practices of the working people that embrace and advance their cultural practices.[29]  In this way, a process of catharsis (meaning “purification”, Gramsci) is possible in the development of the class consciousness of the working people.

The unity of the motifs that make up the dominant ideology or common sense does not constitute an absolute gapless structure, and these motifs are not in complete harmony with each other. In the communist ideological struggle, it is valuable to point out these incompatibilities and, when appropriate, to demonstrate the invalidity of pragmatic and metaphysical ideological motifs. For example, a worker who is dismissed as a result of privatization without concerning his/her “rights” can be showed, if intervened at the appropriate time, that the ideas he had about his boss, labor laws and the state during his employment are “blindfolds”. Again, for example, it can be made clear that the food given in the tents set up by the religionists during Ramadan or the alms given in general are not enough to feed a mass of laborers who are permanently unemployed.

The effectiveness of reactionary ideological ideas on people depends on their reproduction through practices. In many of the practices experienced by workers, many realist ideological motifs are also derived, albeit scattered. Problems encountered in the course of work, the hardship of making a living, being fired from work, waiting in line at the hospital and in front of the public bread kiosk, and so on... every conceivable life experience can also lead to the reproduction of realist and progressive ideological motifs. Unless, of course, people who come from the countryside to the city and are forced to live in squalor in the slums, workers who go on strike for their rights, university students who cannot study because they cannot pay their tuition fees, are reached in time and communist ideological motifs are carried to them from the outside, the negative, helpless, passive positioning that will emerge as a result of the processes that will take place will help the reactionary metaphysical and pragmatic ideological motifs to flourish or be adopted, and the flourishing realist and progressive ideological motifs to fade from memory.

In short, communist ideological struggle is carried out under the umbrella of political struggle. Teaching is important only in the consolidation of a communist consciousness that has already formed/is forming at a certain level and in bringing this consciousness together with theoretical knowledge and historical consciousness. However, ideological struggle is carried out through political and cultural interventions carried out in the practices of the working people, in an appropriate timing, with an appropriate style and means. Although political struggle includes educational activities, such as organizing panels, seminars and conferences, it cannot be reduced to these. The ideological impact of these activities should not be underestimated.

The importance of political/ideological struggle increases in periods when the order enters a crisis of hegemony. This is because these are historical periods when the incompatibility between the motifs that make up the dominant ideology increases, deepens and the ties between these motifs begin to dissolve and the components of the dominant ideology cannot be easily reproduced in practice. In the communist ideological struggle, it is always necessary, but even more so in times of crisis, to know how to articulate with the realist and progressive-communist ideas produced by the working people through their practices and to evolve them into a more complete ideological outlook. Communist ideology takes its general principles and inspiration from scientific studies, but it cannot exist without incorporating the realist and progressive ideological motifs that have been formed in society and that have flourished in the minds of working people.[30]

V. Objections to Althusser's understanding of “ideology”

It would also be useful to touch upon the relevant views of the famous French “Marxist” in order to break the impression he left on the Turkish left and academic circles. Althusser also managed to attract the attention of the Turkish left with his theses on “ideology”.

i. In our opinion, a speculative “general theory of ideology”[31] should be avoided. It is possible and useful to analyze ideologies in the social concrete and to arrive at some abstractions on this basis. This is the materialist position. Of course, within the framework drawn by abstractions that are the product of previous detailed research, some determinations based on new observations can be added to the theory. This is what Althusser attempted to do when he tried to add a few observations on “ideology” within the framework drawn by basic concepts such as Marxist basis-superstructure, state apparatus. As far as can be understood from Althusser's writings on “ideology”, there is no systematic and in-depth study on this subject based on concrete investigations. There is no need to rediscover the American continent, but if progress is to be made in areas that have not been dealt with in Marxist theory in sufficient depth, it is necessary to carry out concrete and comprehensive investigations in these areas without rejecting the existing theoretical perspective.

ii. Despite his meticulousness, Althusser sometimes makes quite arbitrary and incorrect interpretations in his writings. Here is an example: “Indeed, after the 1844 Manuscripts, The German Ideology clearly presents a theory of ideology, but (...) this theory is not Marxist.”[32]  This is an arbitrary and incorrect interpretation that should be accepted only because Althusser says so. Let us continue: “In The German Ideology this statement (‘ideology has no history’-MB) is used in an explicitly positivist context.”[33]  This statement is also false. The German Ideology was written from a materialist point of view. The statement that “ideologies, science, art, law, etc. have no independent history” is also used in the context of a materialist perspective, in opposition to the idealist interpretation of history. In criticizing Hegel's idealist philosophy, an anti-philosophical stance is taken, but this anti-philosophical stance is directed against the thought and perspective of Hegel and the young Hegelians. Historical-dialectical materialism has nothing to do with the anti-philosophical attitude of positivism.

iii. The relation that Althusser establishes between “ideology” and “the unconscious” has no basis. Althusser claims that there is an “organic connection” between the proposition that “ideology has no history” and Freud's proposition that “the unconscious is without before and after”, and states that this association is “theoretically necessary”.[34]  Althusser explains that this “analogy is theoretically justified” by saying that “in the last analysis, the before and afterlessness of the unconscious is based on the before and afterlessness of ideology in general”.[35] Of course, his sentence does not lack an ornament like “in the last analysis”...

“If being without before and after means that it is not transcendent, but ready and available in the face of all (temporal) history, that is to say, that its form does not change in the whole sweep of history, then I will take Freud's words literally and say that, just like the unconscious, ideology is without before and after.”[36]

The concept of “ideology”, which is an abstraction, can be considered “without before and after”, always “ready and waiting”. To say that an abstraction, a concept, exists “ready and waiting”, “unchanging in form” in all history is sheer idealism. At this point it is impossible not to recall what Marx says in the Grundrisse about the concept of “production”, which is an abstraction. Such concepts save us from repeating a lot of details, because they are abstractions. But bourgeois thinkers (the liberal J. S. Mill, for example) who, instead of analyzing the specific mode of production of each epoch, speak of a general operation of “production” that is supposed to be valid in every epoch, are idealists.[37]  What about Althusser, who theorizes “ideology”?

In our opinion, it is unnecessary to resort to Freud's pansexualist (all-encompassing sexualist) approach, to use concepts such as “unconscious” (the impulses and instincts that are considered “unconscious” are, in our view, part of “consciousness”), “before and afterlessness”, etc., when making an assessment of ideologies. Moreover, they are not to be messed with. Instead, using some widely accepted knowledge of psychology, one can point to some of the mental mechanisms used in the production and reproduction of metaphysical and pragmatic ideologies. The study of the initial production and development of each ideology requires an assessment of detailed concrete historical conditions.

iv. The first of Althusser's two theses, which, though valuable, lacks originality, is as follows: “Ideology shows the imaginary relation of individuals to their real conditions of existence.”[38]  The second thesis is as follows: “Ideology has a material existence.”[39]  What makes these two theses valuable is that they are paraphrases of Marx's correct determinations on ideology. Recall, for example, the relevant parts of The German Ideology, 18 Brumaire, Capital. Althusser is also right when he writes that “(...) we can put forward the thesis that any imaginary distortion observable in all ideologies is supported by the imaginary nature of this relation”.[40] However, while Althusser does not classify ideologies and states that an “imaginary distortion” can be observed in all ideologies, he forgets to add that “distortion” is generally absent in revolutionary-realist ideologies and theories, and if it is observed, it is not a characteristic feature. What drives people to distort reality, what underlies these ideological distortions, must be sought in social life. The mental/psychological mechanisms that function in the formation and reproduction of ideologies cannot produce “distortions” on their own. It is the social practices of people that produce ideologies. Althusser is right in pointing to these practices. But Marx had already advanced this materialist thesis long before, writing in the eighth of his Theses on Feuerbach that “social life is essentially practical; all the mysteries that lead theory into mysticism find their rational solution in human practice and in the understanding of this practice”.

v. Althusser identifies ideological ideas with “acts of practice regulated by rules defined by an ideological apparatus” and writes that once so defined, “ideas (as ideas endowed with an ideal, spiritual existence) have disappeared”.[41] He identifies ideologies with what we call “ideological practices”. However, apart from “ideological practices”, there are life practices that produce ideological motifs. Ideologies cannot be reduced to “(...) material acts that take place in material practices determined by material rules defined by the material ideological apparatus that originate in the subject's thoughts”.[42] Because, although the ultimate source of subjects' ideological and non-ideological thoughts are vital practices, thoughts are not identical with practices.

Other examples can be given of Althusser's arbitrary and absurd approaches. For example, what he calls “my thesis, which is at the centre of everything” is as follows: “ideology calls individuals subjects.”[43]  Even if we leave aside his use of the abstract concept of “ideology”, it is impossible to understand from what he writes what the process he calls “calling” is. Only Althusser must know the meaning of the sentence “Individuals are already-always subjects”...[44] Examples of his absurd statements are his characterizations such as “family, father/mother/sibling ideology”, “family ideology”. We must not forget his arbitrary interest and sympathy for Freud:

“It doesn't take a scientist to realize that all this ideological coercion and pre-determination, as well as this domestication, first in the family and then in education, must have something to do with what Freud studied as the forms of the genital and pre-genital ‘phases’ of sexuality, that is to say, with what Freud studied under the heading of the ‘comprehension’ of what he called the unconscious.”[45]

vi. As for ideological apparatuses... The definition of “Ideological State Apparatus” (ISA) is problematic. According to this view, the state is “present and at hand” in families with its family ISA; in every school, whether private or public, with its educational ISA; in the press-radio-television channels and even the internet with its communication ISA; in literature, fine arts and sports with its cultural ISA; and in other areas of social life with its other ISAs. In short, according to this view, the state is almost everywhere, or almost everything (family, literature, etc.) is the state. Can the state, whether it is considered as an “apparatus” or as a “social relation”, exist in almost all processes, organizations and institutions of society, albeit through the “dominant ideology”? Are all processes, organizations and institutions of societies “apparatuses”? Moreover, can they be characterized as “apparatuses of the state”? This is the question. According to Althusser, it is the “state ideology”[46] or “the dominant ideology, which is the ideology of the ruling class”[47] that unites these various apparatuses. Althusser states that the ISAs are the site of class struggles and adds that “no class can permanently hold state power without exercising its hegemony within and over the Ideological Apparatuses of the State”.[48] With a note added later to correct his statements, he leaves an eclectic mess in the middle:

“The class struggle in the ISAs is only one of the manifestations of a class struggle that transcends the ISAs. The ideology that a ruling class makes dominant in the ISAs 'takes place' in the ISAs, but transcends them because it comes from elsewhere. In the same way, an ideology that an oppressed class manages to defend against and within the ISAs transcends the ISAs because it comes from elsewhere.

(...) ideologies are then 'born' not in the SIAs but in the social classes participating in the class struggle, i.e. in the conditions of their existence, their practices, their experiences of struggle, etc.”[49]

VI. Examples of Political Ideologies

At this point, let us conclude our article by focusing on the examples of liberalism, conservatism, social democracy, feminism, nationalism and fascism.[50]

i. Classical liberalism

Liberalism can be summarized as the reflection of the historical development of Western European societies in the 18th and 19th centuries in the bourgeois class consciousness. In the 17th century, liberal values and principles were the leitmotif of the bourgeoisie's political/ideological, philosophical and artistic struggle against the development of absolutist monarchies in Western Europe, which combined economic, military, religious and legal power mechanisms in the person of kings. Classical liberalism, as the worldview of the bourgeoisie in the process of the formation of its political power, takes shape as it establishes its hegemony over the pre-proletarian masses of people and the proletariat in its struggle against monarchy and aristocracy.

The central concept of liberalism is the individual. In liberal thought, the individual is a singular human subject isolated from social relations (atomization) and not considered in the historical flow (de-historicization). In capitalist society, the bourgeois and the proletarians are equated on the intellectual plane with the characterization of the individual/citizen and the class relations between them are hidden in reality.

According to classical liberalism, security of life, liberty and property, including the labor power of the individual, are “natural rights”. In essence, this corresponds to a half-veiled defence of the interests of the bourgeoisie and their presentation as the interests of the whole society. While the liberal bourgeois consider the right to life, negative liberties and private property to be natural rights of individuals, these entities, which are determined by social-historical relations, are abstracted from their social-historical context and naturalized. For example, in contrast to the absurdity of talking about a slave's right to life during the Roman Empire, for the modern “slaves”, the proletarians, there is of course the idea of a right to life shaped in line with the requirements of capital accumulation processes. The advances in productive forces experienced with the development of capitalist production on European soil find their reflection in superstructures in the understanding of “negative freedom”, which means that individuals' ability to create and disseminate information, ideas, express their thoughts and transform them into behaviors should not be restricted by interventions. In liberal thought, when the freedom of individuals is presented as a natural right, it is again dehistoricized.

In classical liberalism, it is assumed that the state is established by a “social contract” and is tasked with protecting “natural rights”. The starting point of John Locke's social contract is the “state of nature”. In the state of nature, which is an imaginary fiction, people have unlimited freedom and absolute equality. In the natural state, there is an environment of uncertainty and insecurity in terms of the exercise of rights. The state is established by individuals giving up their judicial and executive powers through a social contract. Thomas Hobbes, on the other hand, bases the state established by a social contract on the state of nature, which he defines as “the war of all against all” (bellum omnium contra omnes). In liberal thought, the state is considered an institution above society, transcending it, and its main function is to protect property. However, the bourgeoisie and their organic intellectuals and political representatives defended a constitutional and secular regime and the rule of law against monarchic and theocratic power. While the capitalist state is established as the organization of the class power relationship between the bourgeoisie and the other classes of society, the bourgeoisie establishes its hegemony over the other classes of society in this way. Both the “social contract” and the “state of nature” are metaphysical concepts.

The “utility conception” of classical liberalism assumes that the actions of individuals, called “homo economicus” (Adam Smith), are based on the pursuit of pleasure and utility. In the market, where individuals engage in exchange relations, they seek to maximize their profits and benefits. Economic relations are thought to constitute a “hidden hand” with its spontaneous mechanisms. It is said that the sum of the benefits of individuals leads to social benefit. However, individuals' pursuit of pleasure and interest/benefit are not a priori characteristics. Within capitalist social-economic relations, people are driven to pursue their interests. An inversion is taking place here. The “hidden hand” is market fetishism. For example, capitalist economic relations lead to increased profits for some bourgeois individuals and bankruptcy for others. The functioning of these economic relations is anarchic and unplanned. From the point of view of the exploited, capitalism does not generally “benefit” them.

ii. Conservatism:

Edmund Burke, Louis de Bonald and Joseph de Maistre wrote the first texts of conservative ideology after the Great French Revolution. What these organic intellectuals of the Ancient Regime had in common was their reaction to the changes brought about by this revolution.

In its initial formation, conservatism, as the class consciousness of the aristocracy, expresses the defense of values and institutions threatened by processes of social change. With this characteristic, while conservative ideology is being formed, the mechanism of reaction-fortmation is in operation. Conservatism was shaped by opposition to the Enlightenment's principle of rationality and reform movements. For example, according to conservatives, the function of religious rules is to maintain social order in the world. They consider it necessary to defend institutions such as family, village, monastery and guild, communities, values, traditions and habits because of their social functions. It is emphasized that every institution and value that has been shown to be useful through experience and habits ensures stability.

According to conservatism, human beings are biologically, emotionally and cognitively imperfect. Therefore, it is said, people's behavior and actions should be controlled and regulated by institutions. Here the mechanism of universalization is activated. People's “flaws” are separated from their “virtues” and understood in a unidirectional way, and they are also naturalized and stripped of their social determinations.

Conservatism, which holds the view that human reason cannot adequately grasp reality, especially social reality, and therefore rational social reforms bring instability, favors the maintenance of habits and traditions. Here, the interaction between reality and human consciousness is evaluated as one-way; the level of perception formed by appearances is absolutized. This attitude is anti-realist.

Conservatism considers it essential to implement social regulations shaped by rules, norms and punishments with the authority of institutions. In this way, it defends the preservation of stability and order and the status quo of social inequalities. It adopts that there should be a relationship of obedience and loyalty, not consent, between authorities and individuals, and that rights should be balanced with duties.

Conservatives are against new values or universal values. In other words, they are conservative, excluding and discriminating against other values.

Conservative thought criticizes and reacts against the erosion of values that develop as a result of industrialization and scientific-technological development. It points to the negativity of material gaining superiority over spirituality. He/she is against development due to the loss of the good old days. He/she looks negatively at the dissolution of rural life and urbanization with the development of capitalism.

Over time, conservative ideology merged and fused with liberal ideology. Thus, it was reshaped as a bourgeois ideology and argued that the values and principles of bourgeois democracy should be preserved. In the 1980s, neoconservatism and neoliberalism were fused, and an authoritarian political approach and marketist/liberal policies were merged in one pot.

Conservatives embrace the concept of nation and are nationalist. They are in favor of “national interests” and the nation-state, laws and the “rule of law”, and the “impartial administration of justice”. All of these functions as an ideological illusion. Conservatism today is a reactionary-pragmatic ideology of capitalist social order. According to Oakeshott, a conservative thinker, conservatism is not an ideology but an attitude. Of course, as an ideology, conservatism has an attitude and a style of behavior against radical changes and social transformations. In other words, it is anti-communist.

iii. Social Democracy:

Social democracy is characterized by the view that phenomena such as poverty, unemployment, inequalities and injustices, which are consequences of capitalist social formations, can be gradually eliminated through political and economic reforms. In some countries, it advocates the development of bourgeois democratic principles and institutions that develop unevenly and late. The welfare state, state regulation of the market and the mixed economy are not only a formula for a way out of the crisis after the Depression of 1929, but also components of a hegemony project to build the consent of the working class to bourgeois democracy, especially in the Cold War years after World War II, against real socialism and the communist parties that tended to regain mass in some European countries. The Keynesian mode of capital accumulation that characterized the golden age of social democracy, the period between the Second War and the 1980s, was replaced by neoliberalism from the 1980s onwards, following an international crisis. The bourgeois democratic superstructures, the product of a partial compromise between capitalists and the proletariat, were thus reorganized. With the dissolution of real socialism in the 1990s, the function of social democracy as a safeguard against communism disappeared, making it obsolete in the eyes of the capitalist class.

Social democracy, as a bourgeois class ideology, is a reformist-pragmatic ideology of capitalist social order, not a revolutionary-realist one, given the opposition between labor and capital.

iv. Feminism:

In capitalist social formations, women are in a disadvantaged, subordinate position compared to men, and are exploited like men. It was only in the 19th century that it became clear that the bourgeoisie's principles of equality, freedom and justice did not correspond to concrete rights for women. The feminist movement first started out on a liberal line with the struggle for women to have equal legal and political rights with men (right to education, equal labor rights, right to vote, etc.). From the beginning of the 19th century until the end of World War I, this period is called “first wave feminism”. The “second wave feminism” was born in the 1960s. It can be said that the feminist movements of this period were not concerned with the political emancipation of women, but with the “emancipation of women”. According to feminists, “femininity” is constructed in society; social structuring produces gender roles.

Although feminists argue that patriarchy (men's power in various spheres) is irreducible to capitalism, in fact, power relations in capitalist societies contain patriarchy as a subset in their structure (organization and functioning). Feminists also oppose the fact that the public sphere (work, politics, culture, etc.) is the domain of men, while the private sphere, consisting of household and family responsibilities, is left to women. However, the scientific structuring of society under communism has the capacity to eliminate the distinction between private and public spheres and power relations, including patriarchy. For example, it is possible under communism to transform household chores and the raising of children into social activities, and to create a society and culture in which gender roles are diminished and people with “androgynous” qualities (the coexistence of roles/characteristics currently considered to be specific to men and women in every individual in the future) are raised.

v. Nationalism:

The concepts of nation, national identity, nationalism, nation-state were coined after the 18th century.

The nation, as the basic concept of nationalism, exists in the minds of nationalists and also in the common sense as an ahistorical fiction/belief. In scientific terms, however, a nation is “an imagined political community” (Benedict Anderson). Every individual in society considers himself identical with other individuals whom he sees as members of the same nation. This conceptualization, which is a distortion of reality, was derived with the emergence of nation-states in the processes of workerization of peasants and the formation of a capitalist market. In the processes of the dissolution of multi-ethnic empires, nationalist ideology first became a principle of the bourgeoisie, and with the formation of capitalist states it became a component of state ideologies. It should be noted that a common language, education system and print media are social necessities in the process of capitalization, and have assumed functions in the derivation of the fiction of “nation”. Through these elements, there is a sympathy and communization of experience among individuals. Nation, as a fiction, as an imaginary creation, is a commonality of experience and emotion among individuals. This fiction is constantly reproduced through literary works, legends and epics, historiography, ideological formation processes in the education system, oral transmission between generations, ceremonies and rituals, symbols such as flags. In this fiction, the class belonging of individuals is covered over, it is assumed that individuals have common interests and origins, and that political power is based on the nation, which is “common in sorrow and common in joy”. Here lies the anti-communist essence of nationalism. Nationalism is also closely related to chauvinism and racism. Moreover, since the demands of ethnic minorities within nation states have persisted to the present day, policies such as coercion and immigration have been implemented against these ethnicities, and reforms have been introduced to support them from time to time. Contrary to what is claimed today, globalization has not brought about the end of nation states. There has been the disintegration of some existing nation states (Yugoslavia being the most typical example) and the emergence of micro-nationalist ideologies.

vi. Fascism:

The fascist dictatorships in Germany and Italy were established with the support of the capitalist class to the protest/fascist movements that sprouted in the economic crisis environment and became massive over time, as a way out of the crisis. The imperialist policies of the capitalist classes coincide with the fascists' occupying/expansionist perspective and armament policy. The fascist movement also fulfilled the function of liquidating the organized working class movements and communists who still posed a threat to the capitalist class. To this must be added that the militarist expansionism aimed at destroying the Soviet Union was in the interest of the imperialist-capitalist system.

As an ideology, fascism takes the concepts and understanding of conservatism to extremes. Its characteristic features are racism, nationalism, fetishization of authority/leader, despotism, distinction between the powerful and the powerless, elitism, militarism, expansionism, anti-communism and corporatism. They glorify an imaginary beautiful pre-capitalist past, the traditions of the Middle Ages, chivalric culture, heroic stories and epics. Fascist ideology is mystical-metaphysical-irrational in character. It is anti-enlightenment, anti-reason and anti-intellectualism. “Creating enemies” and conspiratorial thinking are characteristics of fascism. Fascists derive values around concepts such as the cult of heroism and death, power, war, hierarchy, command, masculinity. Fascism also has an ascetic ethic of work and production.

Initial writing deadline: January 1, 2008 / Revision date: June 1-9, 2022 / Date translated into English: May 29-30, 2024

[1] Jon Elster, Marx'ı Anlamak, Trans: Semih Lim, LiberteYayınları, 2004, p. 476

[2] Destutt de Tracy as cited in Jan Rehmann, İdeoloji Kuramları-Yabancılaşmanın ve Boyun Eğmenin Güçleri, Yordam Kitap, 2nd Edition, 2020, p. 26

[3] See, for example, Jan Rehmann, op. cit. pp. 25-30. Rehmann's book has a chapter providing detailed information about Tracy's endeavor. In addition, he presents a “panorama” ranging from Napoleon's pejorative use of the concept of ideology, Marx and Engels' evaluations of ideology, Lukacs, Gramsci, Althusser, post-structuralism's view of the subject, Bourdieu, Faucault and many others. See also Sinan Özbek, İdeoloji Kuramları, Bulut Yayınları, 2000, p. 31. This book summarizes Francis Bacon's “idol” doctrine, Adrien Halvétius, Dietrich Holbach, Destutt de Tracy and Napoléon Bonaparte's thoughts on ideology. In understanding the historical change in the pre-Marx meaning of the concept of ideology, Nur Betül Çelik, İdeolojinin Soykütüğü I: Marx ve İdeoloji, Bilim ve Sanat Yayınları, First Edition, 2005, pp. 27-56 may also be useful.

[4] In the following sections of the article, references are made to studies that contain realist evaluations of the ideologies that we are inspired by and utilize.

[5] We use this concept inspired by the “Proto-ideological” concept of PIT (Projeckt Ideologietheorie, founded by Wolfgang Fritz Haug in 1977). See Jan Rehmann, op. cit., pp. 256-7

[6] Emotions and behaviors such as sadness, grief and crying are social attitudes. Views that suggest that human emotions are entirely “natural” are misleading. Although biological/physiological mechanisms play a role in the formation of human emotions, it is social relations that regulate, shape and give meaning to them. As an extreme example, among the Andaman Islanders, weeping is a “rit” that signifies situations where “interrupted social relations are about to be renewed” such as peace-making ceremonies, friend reunions, marriage, and the end of a period of mourning. (Brian Morris, Din Üzerine Antropolojik İncelemeler-Bir Giriş Metni, Translated by Tayfun Atay, İmge Kitabevi Yayınları, First Edition, 2004, p. 202)

[7] Religious beliefs can help people cope with problems. Religion, the “heart of a heartless world”, like the use of “opium”, relieves pain and gives an artificial and false peace and happiness. The saying “Peace is in Islam” can also be read in this sense. We can expand on these lines with an example: (See Asım Yapıcı, Ruh Sağlığı ve Din: Psiko-sosyal Uyum ve Dindarlık, Karahan Kitabevi, First Edition, 2007). This “empirical” (!) study evaluates the impact of religiosity on mental health from a one-sided religious perspective. Nevertheless, it may be useful to consider its findings from our own perspective: “1. Religions develop a way of life and behavior and ask their followers to live accordingly (...) drug, alcohol and cigarette use, uncontrolled sexuality (...) there is an inverse relationship between religiosity and the physical and mental illnesses that these can bring. In addition, religions (...) desire to raise individuals who are helpful, who stay away from committing crimes, who do not disturb the peace of society, and who are in harmony with their physical and social environment. 2. Religions provide psycho-social support to their members through the social structure and system they have established (...) 3. (...) Religions either increase their followers' level of acceptance of the situation, thus giving them strength and patience, or they give them the ability to see the problem from another perspective. In this way, failures, illnesses, calamities, troubles, etc. are reinterpreted with religious references. 4. Individual and collective worship has a significant effect on reducing depression, anxiety, fear, anger, frustration, alienation, feelings of inferiority, hopelessness and loneliness (...) In addition, worship has a positive effect on the mental health of the individual as it functions as meditation. 5. Establishing a sincere and strong bond with one's God provides a spiritual orientation in terms of making sense of life and gaining individual strength (...) 6. Religious practices, which serve as a change of consciousness in stressful times of social disorder, create a catharsis (discharge) and a special environment for solving problems.” (op. cit., pp. 160-161). These statements should be read inverted from a materialist point of view, knowing that religions in general are created in line with the practical needs of the exploited and the exploiters.

[8] The writing down of knowledge, ideas, beliefs, ideological motifs, rules of law, etc., in short, all intellectual products, is their objectification. Since these are products of past practices, they also lead to new practices and actions. Nevertheless, it is social practices that give them meaning. The transmission of these intellectual products to new generations through writing and teaching is only useful within the continuity of social practices. We can explain this by interpreting Karl Popper's “intellectual-fictional experiment” from our own perspective. For example, suppose there is a major catastrophe of the “apocalyptic” kind. The vast majority of people living on Earth and the material products of their civilization are wiped out. A dozen adult and relatively cultured people are left, and they have some material means to meet their needs for nutrition, heating, etc. In this situation, these people can realize their knowledge with their past practical experience. Especially if there is a library full of books left, they will use their contents to live and rebuild civilization. However, it is certain that they will not be able to reproduce many ideological ideas, and some knowledge they will not be able to put into practice in a short time because of their lack of experience. Under the same conditions, if instead of adults, a dozen babies were left, they would not survive. But what if there were a dozen young people with relatively little life experience?

[9] We recommend reading three books that provide a comprehensive overview of “political ideologies”: i) Compiled by: H. Birsen Örs, 19. Yüzyıldan 20. Yüzyıla Modern Siyasal İdeolojiler, İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, 1st Edition, 2007; ii) Andrew Heywood, Siyasi İdeolojiler; Bir Giriş, Adres Yayınları, 1st Edition, 2007. iii) Prepared by: Gökhan Atılgan, E. Attila Aytekin, Siyaset Bilimi-Kavramlar, İdeolojiler, Disiplinler Arası İlişkiler, Yordam Kitap, 1st Edition, 2012. At this point, we should note that Nur Betül Çelik objects to the characterization of “political ideologies”: “The term ‘political ideology’ is first and foremost a tautology; ideology is inherently political” (Nur Betül Çelik, op. cit., p. 20). Çelik states that this characterization is made on the basis of the dualism of philosophy and ideology, which not only neglects the political character of ideology, but also the ideological character of philosophy. In our view, amprism is related to liberalism, historical-dialectical materialism to communism, social-Darwinism and irrationalism to fascism and nationalism, and post-modernism to neo-liberalism. There is a coherence and integration between specific philosophical ideologies and their corresponding “political” ideologies.

[10] For a detailed analysis on this subject, see; Teo Grünberg, Epistemik Mantık Üzerine Bir Araştırma, YKY, First Edition, 2007

[11] By characterizing Marxism as “eschatological”, Nur Betül Çelik joins the chorus of those who characterize Marxism as “teleological”. According to Nur Betül Çelik, “Marx's theory of ideology is eschatological in the sense that ideology will end in a classless society.” She bases this false conclusion on a passage in The German Ideology (Nur Betül Çelik, op. cit., pp. 24, 131). We should note that Çelik does not understand the passage from The German Ideology correctly. Moreover, materialists/realists establish the past-present-future relation by analyzing the social concrete and thus make predictions (not prophecies) about the future. This is what Marx did. Moreover, there are partial changes in our realist predictions. In our view, reactionary, metaphysical ideologies will disappear in the future because the social conditions that produced them will no longer exist. But the production of realist ideas will continue. Why is this difficult for the academy to understand? Serpil Sancar Üşür also has an opinion that Marxism is “teleological”: “First of all, Marx's thesis that social practice reverses itself in the course of its development and that this is an objective movement outside the human will, uncontrollable by subjects, opens the doors to a teleological interpretation of history. The idea that history develops by unfolding itself over time due to a latent rationality contains typical Hegelian traces.” (Serpil Sancar Üşür, İdeolojinin Serüveni-Yanlış Bilinç ve Hegemonyadan Söyleme, İmge Kitabevi, 1st edition, 1997, p. 21). Serpil Sancar Üşür writes these lines while evaluating Marx's writings on ideology. The author does not understand Marx's writings on ideology and Marxism correctly. Marx does not have a teleological or eschatological approach to history.

[12] Since the class determination of social relations will disappear under communism, the political relations of sovereignty and rule observed between people will also disappear. This means the disappearance of the state as an instrument of political power, domination and oppression. Under socialism, the state will gradually abandon this old function. The state as a political instrument will fade (“wither away”-Engels) only when it becomes the form of organization of all social life. The state(s) will gradually come to perform the objective social work that people living all over the world collectively organize and take under their control. Social engineering tasks such as planning, the realization of production processes, the satisfaction of needs, the education of younger generations, the care of the elderly and the disabled will be carried out by an organization that includes everyone. In short, while the organization of domination and the political apparatus, the state/states, the structure in which the power relations between the capitalist class and the proletariat are organized, will fade away, an organizational structure that encompasses all humanity will gradually be created. The unity of the state/states will become the organization of society encompassing all humanity. The state will be identified with organized society.

[13] “ (...) the contradiction of labor-capital (...) This contradictory process, which expresses the continuous reproduction of capital by reproducing its opposite, explains the origin and function of ideology.” (Jorge Larrain, Ideology and Cultural Identity, trans: Neşe Nur Domaniç, Sarmal Yayınevi, First Edition, 1995, p. 25). Again, Althusser's formulation of “reproduction of relations of production” is valid. For example, the following theses are valid: “the reproduction of the qualities of labor-power is ensured by the domination and framework of ideological forms of subordination”; “we are of the opinion that it is only from reproduction that it is possible and necessary to think what characterizes the nature of the superstructure and the essence of its existence.” (Louis Althusser, İdeoloji ve Devletin İdeolojik Aygıtları, trans: Alp Tümertekin, İthaki Yayınları, First Edition, 2003, pp. 159, 162)

[14] According to scientific data, “races” do not exist. “Race” is an ideological coding. The consciousness of nationhood is politically/ideologically constructed. The concepts of society and people have equivalents in objective reality. The definition of “nation” has no equivalent in objective reality. Peoples have intertwined and fused throughout history. Parameters such as language, religion, ethnicity, history and tradition, which are used to define and distinguish nations, are insufficient to describe nations. For example, Americans, Australians and New Zealanders speak English as a first language but do not consider themselves members of the “British nation”. In Swiss society, French, German and Italian are spoken. In Northern Ireland, people who speak the same language are separated into religious lines (Protestant and Catholic) (For this information see Andrew Heywood, op. cit., pp. 197-198). Although there are many peoples/ethnicities in Turkey, it is claimed that they all constitute one and the same “nation”, etc... Examples can be multiplied, but they are unnecessary. What is important is to see that “national identity” is constructed in the minds through elements such as the unity of religious beliefs and “race”, a common understanding of history in which exaggeration and fabrication are functional. The designation of certain special days and the organization of ceremonies on these days to commemorate past victories, days of liberation, military achievements of “national” leaders, the educational process in schools, the encouragement to read literary works with patriotic sentiments also participate in the formation of “national identity”.

[15] At this point, we cannot pass without mentioning Demir Küçükaydın's book on the subject of “nation” (Demir Küçükaydın, Marksizm’in Marksist Eleştirisi-Üstyapı, Din ve Ulus Eleştirisi, Versus Kitap, 2007). Küçükaydın's book is full of absurd and, at times, comical statements. It can be said that Küçükaydın's book is “a contamination in which the name of Marxism is smeared”. Here are some “pearls” from a few random pages of this book: “Again, it is evident why the ‘right of nations to self-determination’ is a demand defended by both internationalists and nationalists at the same time, and why it is not at all contradictory for Lenin and Wilson to agree on the same program or principle.” (pp. 136-137); “The discovery in recent years that romanticism is the fourth source of Marxism (...) also means that this reactionary nationalism is a source of Marxism.” (p. 163); “Marxism and socialism must be another religion, not a sect. Socialists must not be Internationalists (members of a more or less progressive sect within the reactionary form of the religion of modern society), but Humanists (defenders of a revolutionary form of this religion which can lead to socialism, rejecting the principle of the coincidence of the political with the national).” (p. 169); ”Marxism and socialism must be another religion, not a sect. p. 169); “In history and society, all knowledge, art, morality, everyday life, politics, the state, philosophy, in short, everything is religious.” (p. 183); “Although both the Enlightenment and Islam are products of the same world market and the need for a superstructure (religion) suitable for this market, since Islam was born in an environment dominated by totems (idols) and the Enlightenment was born in an environment dominated by Christianity, they developed different strategies against the dominant religions. For example, Islam does not deny that the religions in the environment in which it was born are religions (i.e. that they constitute the entire superstructure) (...) In this sense, Islam was more accurate and realistic about what religion is than the Enlightenment.” (p. 158); ”However, the logical conclusion of Marxist categories is that religion is entirely superstructure. Since religion is all superstructure, there cannot be a society without superstructure; wherever there is a society, and therefore a production or infrastructure, there will be a superstructure, and therefore there will be religion. In other words, when thought in Marxist categories, in sociological categories, irreligion is not possible.” (p. 160). You should see how many more “pearls” there are... But shame on this “Marxist Critique of Marxism”, a thousand times shame on it... Especially for drawing “programmatic, strategic and organizational conclusions” from its absurd evaluations.

[16] The vertical axis marks the “epistemological” classification and the horizontal axis the “ontological”/functional classification. The upper part of the vertical axis is characterized by the existence of an objective connection/congruence between ideological behavior and the content of thought that is aimed to be realized, while the lower part is characterized by the absence of this connection/congruence. A third axis/dimension can be added to the figure by distinguishing between “loose” ideological motifs and “hard” ideological formations/doctrines generated in everyday life. Realist, pragmatic, metaphysical and utopian ideological motifs generated in everyday life can all be called the realm of “common sense” (Gramsci). The fourth dimension is time. Let us make a “variation” about colors: Every map is drawn using a maximum of four colors, so that no two adjacent areas on the plane or on the surface of a sphere are the same color. A map that necessarily requires a fifth color cannot be drawn on a plane. Could a similar situation apply to a “map” of the field of ideologies?... (For more information on the “four-color theorem/problem” see;

http://www.matematikdunyasi.org/arsiv/PDF_eskisayilar/91_1_7_10_DORTRENK.pdf). For example, for us, even commodity aesthetics is a micro-ideology. Commodity aesthetics, which organizes our senses such as taste and smell, is active as a component of consumer ideology with the promise of pleasure and satisfaction (see Jan Rehmann, op. cit., p. 121). In individual cases, we can thus include commodity aesthetics in the realm of metaphysical or pragmatic ideologies.

[17] There are some similarities between the “modes of functioning of ideology” quoted by Metin Çulhaoğlu from J. B. Thompson and the “ideological mechanisms” we present (See; Metin Çulhaoğlu, İdeolojiler Alanı ve Türkiye Örneği, Öteki Yayınevi, 2nd edition, 1999, pp. 43-47). For example, we have used symbolization, displacement and universalization in a similar sense to Thompson's usage. If it is true that ideologies have certain modes of functioning, it is logical to think that these modes, at least some of them, will be involved in their formation. Furthermore, similar to Thompson's, Terry Eagleton also evaluates the functions of ideologies under the heading of “ideological strategies”. According to him, ideologies are rationalizing, legitimizing, universalizing, naturalizing, dehistoricizing, etc. (See; Terry Eagleton, İdeoloji, Trans: Muttalip Özcan, AyrıntıYayınları, First Edition, 1996, pp. 59-98). While conceptualizing “ideological mechanisms”, we have been inspired by and partially benefited from these studies. We have also benefited from the terms of psychology known as “defense mechanisms of the self”.

[18] M. Orhan Öztürk, Ruh Sağlığı ve Bozuklukları, Evrim Yayınları, 2nd edition, 1989, p. 46. For the original meanings of the terms (“defense mechanisms of the self”) that we consider and interpret in our study, see this work.

[19] By “innocent” use of the defense mechanisms of the self, we mean that these mechanisms are active in the formation of feelings, thoughts and behaviors that cannot be considered as ideological motifs in daily life. It should not be forgotten that some of the mechanisms we have evaluated are also used in this way.

[20] For the information we have used here on magical thinking, see İlker Belek, Toplumsal Bilinç-Evrimsel Bir Toplumsal Hareket Düşüncesine Doğru, Sorun Yayınları, 1st edition, 1991, pp. 46-54, 79-94. Although Belek's book is a good compilation on the “primitive community”, moreover on the forms of consciousness of primitive communities, it is impossible to agree with some of his views, for example: “The formation of magical consciousness is concerned with grasping natural events in terms of events within nature (...) In this sense, magical consciousness is scientific”; “Totemist consciousness expresses an advanced stage in explaining the causes of events. The relations between things are comprehended with more regularity. With these characteristics, totemic consciousness is also scientific"; ”An unobservable, incomprehensible, inaccessible, supernatural element is involved in the explanation of movement. In this way, thought shifts outside of nature, which is considered knowable for the first time. In this sense, shamanistic consciousness is the first mode of thought that begins to lose its scientific qualities"; ‘In this sense, religion is the negation of magical-scientific consciousness.’ Of course, primitive societies observed at the dawn of history also produced scientific/realistic ideas. Otherwise, their relations with nature would not have developed. The magical thinking and totemic consciousness produced by primitive societies, on the other hand, are not scientific. The fact that these “forms of consciousness” have a logic of formation and are the product of empirical experiences does not make them “scientific”. Belek, following the line of Taylor and Frazer, who systematized Taylor's ideas, considered magical thinking as scientific. Since many years have passed since the publication of his book, it is possible that Belek has corrected and improved his views.

[21] Marx discovered this mechanism. For Elster's evaluation on “inversion” as one of the mechanisms of the formation of ideologies, see Jon Elster, Marx'ı Anlamak, Trans: Semih Lim, Liberte Yayınları, 2004, pp. 477-482. Elster identifies the following mechanisms in the formation of ideologies; “inversion”, “the perception of the whole from the point of view of the part”, “‘warm’ mechanisms by which members of a class confuse their specific interests with those of society in general”, “the generalization of locally valid relations or the cognitive fallacy of believing that what is true in any one case is true in all cases”, “the ‘concept imperialism’ arising from the application of capitalist categories to pre-capitalist social structures or non-capitalist social structures” (Jon Elster, op. cit. op. cit, s. 476-493)

[22] Two types of illusion can be distinguished. The first is more subjective, as in the perception of “a cane as a snake”. The second is an objective appearance, as in the perception that “the sun revolves around the earth” or that “a pencil placed in a glass of water appears broken”. We mostly use the term in the latter sense. The creation of metaphysical entities such as genies, fairies, UFOs (unknown foreign objects), “the monster of Lake Van”, etc. in the mind is more of a subjective illusion.

[23] “To fetishize or fetishize something is to give it powers that it does not have on its own. The term 'fetish' originates in religious discourse (...) The fetish, then, presents itself as endowed with a power that in reality it lacks. It has no power in the real world, it has power in the religious world, in a world of illusions.” (Gerald A. Cohen, Karl Marx’ın Tarih Teorisi, Trans: Ahmet Fethi, Toplumsal Dönüşüm Yayınları, First Edition, 1998, p, 141). Marx identified the fetishism in the economic sphere in the capitalist mode of production. In Capital, Marx emphasizes commodity fetishism, money, interest and capital fetishism.

[24] In an article in which he also evaluates Marx's “inversion” mechanism, Gökhan Atılgan makes the following observation: “Marx developed his conceptualization of ideology not in different and contradictory forms in his works of ‘youth’ and ‘maturity’, but in such a way as to carry a coherent internal integrity.” (Gökhan Atılgan, “Marx’ta İdeoloji: Kapitalizmin Devrimci Eleştirisinin Bir Olanağı”, Praksis-Three Monthly Journal of Social Sciences 4, Fall 2001, internet version: http://praksis.fisek.com.tr/atilgan01g.php ) This determination is correct. In one of our articles, unaware of Atılgan's aforementioned article, we have also shown that Marx consistently maintained and developed his basic approach to religion as laid out in the Introduction to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Law (Mahmut Boyuneğmez, “‘Feuerbach Üzerine Tezler’i Anlamak”, http://marksistarastirmalar.blogspot.com/2013/07/feuerbach-uzerine-tezleri-anlamak.html).

[25] It is possible to extend the scope of the mechanism Elster calls “concept imperialism” (see Jon Elster, op. cit., pp. 490-493). Thus, we propose to call this mechanism “inappropriate concept transfer”. Anachronism, biologism, social-Darwinism, ethnocentrism, anthropocentrism, etc. can be considered within the scope of this mechanism.

[26] In Europe, North Africa and other parts of the Old World, the “Black Death” of the mid-14th century (outbreaks continued intermittently in Europe until the 18th century), which wiped out one-third (or one-third to two-thirds) of the population of these regions, there are assessments that the “Black Death” was not “plague” but an outbreak of a viral infection such as “ebola” (classical information about the “Black Death” can be found, for example, on the internet at Wikipedia or in Tolga Ersoy, Tıp Tarih Metafor, Öteki Yayınevi, Second Edition, 1996, pp. 68-103). Whatever the etiology of this epidemic, we hypothesize that the changing social relations of Europe were important in its emergence and spread in Europe. Again, for example, contagious infectious diseases brought by the colonizers, notably smallpox, caused mass deaths in the New World. The process of primordial capital accumulation in Europe was indirectly influenced by the infectious diseases carried by the colonizers as well as their weapons. “In 1500, the infectious diseases of Europe had not yet affected the New World; the population of the New World at that time was 80-100 million, i.e. one-fifth or one-quarter of the world's population. By 1600, populations in populous regions such as Mesoamerica, the Andes and the southeast of North America had declined by ninety percent. To put the loss of the New World during the sixteenth century at fifty million is an optimistic estimate. Depending on the initial figure, the loss could have been seventy-five million or more.” (Ronald Wright, İlerlemenin Kısa Tarihi, trans: Zarife Biliz, Barış Baysal, Versus Kitap, 2007, p. 156)

[27] “Halvetius' pointing out that insects living in a meadow where sheep graze might see sheep as terrible predators and the wolves that eat them as benevolent beings (...)” (David McLellan, Ideoloji, Trans: Ercüment Özkaya, Doruk Yayımcılık, First Edition, 1999, p. 16)

[28] What we have written so far and the “ideological mechanisms” we have abstracted do not include all mechanisms in the formation and reproduction of metaphysical, pragmatic and utopian ideologies. The examples we have given are also far from embracing the richness of social life that produces ideologies. It is necessary to consider other examples of mechanisms that serve the formation of ideological motifs in social life. Nevertheless, we should point out that with our evaluation of ideological mechanisms, we do not constitute an example of methodological individualism, nor do we make a psychologist reduction. This will become apparent when one considers all that we have written.

[29] In fact, religious, nationalist and fascist politics cannot develop an effective political-ideological line without articulating with the heterogeneous and inconsistent ideological motifs that constitute the common sense. Nazi fascism in Germany, for example, captured the masses by developing an orthopraxy (“correct practice”) rather than orthodoxy. Instead of a set of ideas, it gave priority to ideological arrangements, practices and ceremonies; it emphasized acts such as marching, mass meetings, collecting food and money for those caught in the cold, living in camps, and organizing mass feasts (See Jan Rehmann, op. cit., p. 268). In capitalist social formations where the hegemony structures that produce consent in the masses are strong, it seems more meaningful for communists to create counter-hegemony structures rather than struggling within these structures. These structures should not be directly political, but cultural and ideological counter-hegemony instruments.

[30] It is not that what is written is not known and practiced. The communist movement in Turkey has experience in this regard. In writing this, apart from our own observations, we rely on the framework put forward by Metin Çulhaoğlu on the subject of “ideological struggle” (see Metin Çulhaoğlu, Binyıl Eşiğinde Marksizm ve Türkiye Solu, Sarmal Yayınevi, First Edition, 1997, pp. 144-148). In the next edition of this work; the subject of “ideological struggle” is included in YGSYayınları, 2002, pp. 196-201.

[31] “I run the danger of proposing a first and very schematic sketch of such a theory.” (Louis Althusser, op. cit., p. 183)

[32] op. cit., p. 183

[33] op. cit., p. 184

[34] op. cit., p. 186

[35] op. cit., p. 186

[36] op. cit., p. 186

[37] “All periods of production have certain common features, common determinations. Production in general is an abstraction, but it is a reasonable abstraction insofar as it actually identifies and reveals the common element, thus saving us from repetition. On the other hand, this common element, filtered through generality or comparisons, is also a complex articulation, a totality that is divided into various different determinations. Some determinations belong to all periods, others to only a few. The most modern period will have (some) characteristics in common with the oldest.” When economists/thinkers such as J. S. Mill establish that there are general characteristics in the sphere of distribution as well as in the sphere of production, what they do is to “blend and eliminate all historical differences under general human laws (...) For example, the slave, the serf and the wage-worker are given a quantity of food which makes it possible for them to exist as slaves, serfs and wage-workers.” Here, “the aim is, in reality, to present production as separate from distribution, etc., as governed by eternal laws of nature, independent of history - see, for example, Mill - so that the opportunity can be seized. Mill, for example, so that bourgeois relations can be gently introduced under the guise of the irresistible laws of nature on which, in the abstract, society is founded.” In conclusion, Marx here identifies an example of naturalization and universalization in bourgeois classical political economy. (Karl Marx, Grundrisse, Birikim Yayınları, trans: Sevan Nişanyan, First Edition, 1979, pp. 143, 146)

[38] Louis Althusser, op. cit., p. 187

[39] op. cit., p. 190

[40] op. cit., p. 189-90

[41] op. cit., p. 195

[42] op. cit., p. 194

[43] op. cit., p. 196

[44] op. cit., p. 202

[45] op. cit., p. 203

[46] op. cit., p. op. cit., p. 11-59

[47] op. cit., p. 171

[48] op. cit., p. 172

[49] op. cit., p. 211-2

[50] For the information on the specific political ideologies we have considered in this chapter, we have used the following two sources: i. Prepared by: Gökhan Atılgan, E. Attila Aytekin, Siyaset Bilimi, pp. 267-281, 283-296, 331-346, 347-361, 363-375, 377-390 ii. Fatih Yaşlı, İdeoloji: Bir Kavramın İzinde, Alabanda Akademi, 2016, pp. 22-68