The year 2025 witnessed highly significant developments for Turkey and Kurdistan, with major debates coming to the fore, particularly within Turkey’s socialist movement. The “Call for Peace and a Democratic Society” issued by Abdullah Öcalan, along with the thesis of Democratic Socialism, remains at the center of ongoing discussions in Turkey.
Hakan Öztürk, Chairperson of the Labor Movement Party (EHP), spoke to ANF, assessing the developments of 2025 and the debates unfolding within Turkey’s socialist movement.
Minimum wage falls below hunger line for first time since 1970s
Hakan Öztürk said there were three major developments over the past year, and outlined them as follows: “In 2025, the Kurdish question was constantly discussed first and foremost in the sphere of democracy. Very important developments took place. In my view, around fifty percent of those working in the private sector earn the minimum wage, and there were debates on how this situation should be addressed.
At the same time, while peace was being discussed, there were very serious attacks directed at the Republican People’s Party (CHP). Attacks like those once carried out against the Kurdish movement were launched. This amounted to a kind of dynamiting of the foundations of democracy. In that sense, these are the first three issues that come to mind for me: two related to democracy, and one to the struggle for bread.
In terms of inflation, the inadequacy of the minimum wage, and the general deterioration of the economy, our situation is not comparable to that of other countries. While food inflation here is over forty percent, in Israel it stands at around two and a half percent. This is a picture of when we compare countries. These figures are not numbers produced by the Labor Movement Party; they are the data currently being announced. The minimum wage that is said to have been increased is, as of now, below the hunger line. This is the first time this has happened in Turkey’s history since the 1970s. The situation in the struggle for bread is that grave. Yet on the other hand, at least regarding the Kurdish question, we are hopeful.
We have seen many things over the years… Statements such as ‘the Kurdish people exist, the Kurdish people are organized, but they have now partially pulled their organization back; therefore there should be peace, therefore there should be law, therefore Abdullah Öcalan’s conditions should change’ were not things we used to hear. Now we have reached that point.
Öcalan, as the primary figure discussing the Kurdish question, is on the stage. The Kurdish movement has been saying for years that this is how it should be, and now this has become possible. At another level, the issue of prisons has come onto the agenda. It has been discussed that people in prison should be kept in prison under lawful conditions. These are positive developments as a starting point.
If the situation moves toward calm as initially envisaged, if peace can be made lasting, if the Syria issue is not further manipulated and the specific conditions there are taken into account, then this could become the best picture we have seen in our history with regard to the Kurdish question.”
Attacks on CHP highlighted the importance of organization
Attacks targeting the Republican People’s Party (CHP) have once again revealed the importance of organization, Hakan Öztürk said, adding that the party has nevertheless failed to fully meet this need. Öztürk said: “I was listening to a commentator who said that such an intervention took place against the CHP. In the end, there was a presidential candidate with a certain political weight who also enjoyed public sympathy. Even so, actions emerged at one level, but not at another. What does this tell us? Of course, this is not easy. There is no organized situation whatsoever. In fact, the CHP itself did this for years. Let us recall the previous ordeal and look at Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu’s march. Did it turn society into an active, marching force? No. Did it organize society? No. He said, ‘I will march,’ and it remained at that level. A slightly more advanced step was taken by the current party leader. He carried it a bit further. There were actions in the streets, but we are facing a society that has not been organized for years.
Society is not organized in trade unions; and even where unions exist, they do not have the right to engage in collective bargaining. Beyond that, society is not organized as a political party. Everyone is being pushed toward depoliticization, and almost anyone who engages in politics is condemned. If the Justice and Development Party (AKP) did this to a certain extent, the CHP did it ten times more. Unfortunately, the result is this: when politics and organization are finally needed, we see just how difficult a position we are in. When there is a counterforce, both politics and organization are required. Neither existed. Özgür Özel could only do as much as this. That is why the level remains where it is. Doing more is not easy.”
Öztürk also said: “We do not know what the CHP’s promise to society is. Does it have a promise different from that of neoliberals? If so, what is it? We do not know. Despite this, with its current level of politicization, the CHP has reached the point of receiving the highest vote in its history. This shows that when there is struggle, things can change.
What does this mean? First, for a party like the CHP, I am not saying that the CHP and the AKP are the same. There are differences between them when a struggle against fascism is underway. In that sense, I see the rise in the CHP’s vote as another positive development.
Second, ten years ago we used to say that this was an absolute situation: thirty percent of Turkey is in favor of change; it is not strongly right-wing, not left-wing either, but not hard right. The remaining seventy percent are right-wing. We used to say that this balance would not change and that Turkey would move forward with this balance. But if we look even at the most recent election, it was 52–48. And now it is not even that. At present, the vote share of the Turkish right within the AKP’s sphere of influence is around forty percent. What I am saying is that the balance between those in society who favor change and those who want the existing order to continue exactly as it is has shifted. From this point, we can put forward more serious and more radical changes. For that, we must be prepared.”
The left cannot channel the change unfolding among Turkey’s peoples
Hakan Öztürk said the left cannot channel the change taking place among Turkey’s peoples into its own political direction, adding that it is also mistaken for the left to approach what has happened to the CHP as if it were happening to itself. Öztürk said: “The left cannot channel the change within Turkish society anywhere. Why not? Because these events are not happening to the left; they are happening to the CHP. Our circles cannot treat this as if it were happening to them, as if they themselves were putting forward a line of resistance; we should not do that. The sense of closeness that emerges will naturally be directed toward the CHP.
Did the CHP evaluate this at the highest level, and can it do so? First of all, CHP cadres are not close to the idea of organization. Perhaps Özgür Özel is the best among them in this regard, but even he remains distant. As a popular movement, there are no highly effective behavioral patterns for building an organization and putting it forward. This was how things functioned for many years under the leadership of Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, and there was no serious objection to it.
They prioritized their own political existence in a way that prevented the emergence of popular organizations. Second, Özgür Özel says, ‘This cannot be solved by sitting at home in pajamas,’ but that approach at best calls for momentary activism. When such a call is made, the problem is not solved immediately. This is not something that can be achieved by pressing a button. Even for that level of activism, years of organizational experience are required. Socialists cannot say, ‘Everyone must think like us.’ In fact, if you look carefully, where does social opposition come together? It comes together at rallies organized by the CHP.”
Öztürk also said: “After elections, there is a recurring attitude: ‘Brother, the working class once again voted for the Justice and Development Party (AKP).’ Fine, you complain about this, but before the election, beyond criticizing the AKP, what did you say to the working class? What did you promise them that would lead the working class to give you its vote at such a critical moment? What did the CHP promise to the working class? Did it promise a say in decision-making? Did it promise unionization? What it promised was this: ‘We are all in the same boat; what matters is to enlarge the pie and increase the share that will go to the working class.’ The CHP said exactly what the Turkish right has always said.
The CHP failed to gather these forces. But if we turn to the socialist left: half of those working in the private sector earn the minimum wage, and this wage is below the hunger line. This has not even become one of the core issues of the Turkish left. The Turkish left cannot say, ‘The struggle for bread is my responsibility’ and it does not say it.
The reason for this, in my view, is the inadequacy of the political program. That inadequacy is rooted in the defeat of the October Revolution. Our circles cannot stand up and say, ‘Wait a minute, who do you think you are to negotiate over this, Türk-Iş?’ Because of that defeat, they no longer see themselves as being in a position to speak on behalf of society’s well-being.”
Turkey’s left has not overcome the defeat of the October Revolution
Hakan Öztürk said that, particularly after the defeat of the October Revolution, Turkey’s left has been unable to free itself from a sense of defeat and has lost its position of speaking on behalf of the public good. Öztürk continued: “For a long time, Turkey’s left has lost the position of speaking in the name of society’s well-being. It cannot speak about wages, nor about employment. It has nothing to say about public administration. Conditions in areas such as housing, healthcare, and nutrition are disastrous, yet it cannot say, ‘Let us address these through public production.’ When it cannot say these things, what is it supposed to say? ‘I am a good leftist; I have endured many ordeals? In Turkey and the Middle East, this is something quite common among leftists, but it cannot be enough. Inevitably, the left must turn toward the agenda of the working class, toward the agenda of the Kurdish people, toward women’s agenda against femicides, and toward education.
If it turns toward these issues, it can achieve results. But if it stands back from them and remains in the position of saying, ‘I am a leftist, admire me, turn toward me,’ or if it imagines that certain unexpected events will suddenly propel it forward, thinking that something will happen and it will become popular, I do not think that will work.
Turkey’s left either remains on a populist line, or most often on a line of majority nationalism, or becomes confined to a very general anti-imperialism. Because of this, it fails to take up many necessary issues. This is not Marxism. Marx says that ‘the social force capable of envisioning the future is the working class.’ That is where we must turn. We must wage a struggle over wages, and a struggle over employment. When we fall back from saying these things, a left that remains only at the level of discourse and identity becomes extremely inadequate.
On the other hand, can it speak clearly, without evasion, about the oppression of the Kurdish people? It does not do that either. There, too, it remains either within populism or the majority of nationalism. Today, a nation is being oppressed, yet you cannot grow stronger; a class is being brutally exploited, yet you cannot grow stronger; women are being murdered, yet you cannot advance from there; young people cannot access proper education, and everything, from preschool to university, is paid for. If we cannot speak about these realities, then the left will not move forward.”
Turkey’s left is returning to its Marxist-Leninist roots, Öcalan’s theses played a role
Hakan Öztürk said that the theses put forward by Abdullah Öcalan have revitalized Turkey’s left, stressing the importance of the commune question and the need to properly understand the theses developed by the Kurdish movement. Öztürk also said: “In 2025, Turkey’s left is returning to its Marxist-Leninist essence. Some of the theses advanced by Öcalan also played a role in revitalizing this process. In this sense, the class question has been remembered again, even if belatedly. Let me give an example. In New York, Zohran Mamdani came out and said: ‘Housing is a problem; the minimum wage is a problem. I will support universities; I will prioritize public production. I will introduce progressive taxation and use the opportunities it creates to do these things.’ Why am I saying this? Because he was elected before doing any of this. Mamdani has not yet implemented these policies; he said he would, and he was elected. This shows that if a political program is put forward, and if that program is constructed in line with the well-being and interests of society, results can be achieved.
For example, Öcalan spoke about communes. In this sense, we can understand communes as municipalities, as the very foundation of municipalities. If, tomorrow, organization were built in these municipalities, if practices such as public bread programs, public markets, and childcare centers were implemented, like what the Istanbul Municipality has done, we would not be missing anything; we have the capacity. My view is that we should present such examples of public services in these spaces and say, ‘This is good.’”
We can explain socialist governance to the people through communes
Hakan Öztürk said that communes can serve as a concrete way of showing society what a socialist form of governance would look like, concluding his remarks as follows: “When we say, ‘We will establish a general socialist country,’ very few people really listen to us. Why? Because they believe such examples have not been successful. But what if, using the means available to municipalities, we were to say, ‘This is how we address the housing problem. This is how we tackle nutrition, this is how we solve transportation’?
Can we not say, as Mamdani did, ‘Look, we will provide this free of charge’? Of course we can. When we are productive through such examples, we will be able to say, ‘There are good models here.’ We will say, ‘Public service provision is actually very effective.’ In this sense, we would be fighting against neoliberal theses.
From this perspective, why should municipalities not be able to do this where communes exist? This would be a very positive example. Let us read Lenin’s State and Revolution. Lenin is not overly anxious about transitional periods. Personally, I am very anxious, because we have not been able to pass through transitional periods successfully. In a transition, the forces we face are not just some misguided local actors; we are confronted by the world’s system itself, by entire war blocs. Transition is extremely difficult.
The more experience we gain, the more practical work we produce around transitional processes, communes, and municipalities, the more beneficial this will be for us when it comes to overall power in the future. We need to better understand how to resist during transitional periods. If the Kurdish movement is proposing these ideas, then I believe we should take them seriously. Even when we eventually take power, we will still need to resist. If you do not have a culture of resistance, you end up like a fish out of water once you take power. Marxist definitions of the transition period are quite calm; but we experience this process under very harsh conditions.
Under certain conditions, you will have to negotiate. In fact, in every situation where we have not taken power, we are already in a state of negotiation. When communes or municipalities take initiatives, tensions will inevitably arise with the existing established order. Managing this process will require maintaining a careful balance.”
Leave a Reply