Earthquake, capitalism, and politics

One would have expected that the economic crises—which are inevitable, structural, and cyclical in capitalism—the COVID-19 pandemic, and the earthquake we experienced on February 6, 2023, would, along with many other reasons, shatter the conventional wisdom regarding the free market. It did not happen. It was hoped that all of these would bring socialist, public-oriented, planning-based thought, and populist-statist economics to the forefront. That did not happen either. 

On the contrary, with only days left until the local elections to be held on March 31, the direct relationship between political financing and urban rent has been laid bare in the candidate selection processes and the grievances of mayors who were not re-nominated. The fact that many mayoral candidates have declared that, if elected, they would allow an extra floor to be added to construction projects has once again made the nature of the relationship between the politician and the voter clear. 

For this reason, in mainstream politics, parties—both the government and the opposition—do not, and cannot, openly and loudly criticize liberalism. That is why in our country, and in many developing countries like ours, the virtues of privatization are touted. That is why the necessity of separating the economy from politics and the imperative that the state should not intervene in the economy are unfortunately defended. 

Because the economic crises experienced, the earthquakes that caused the loss of tens of thousands of our citizens' lives, deep poverty, and the chasm between classes cannot sufficiently warn people or create a leap in consciousness. Failing banks are kept alive by the state. Bankrupt companies are saved through public resources and interventions. Public funds are created to assist the faltering, large-scale companies of the private sector. In short, as we often emphasize, in capitalism, profits are privatized, and losses are socialized.

Yet, politics should be the first to object to these, to say no, and to oppose them.

However, politics is not doing what is required in this regard. Because it does not, dependency relationships in the economy and politics continue. A sense of direction is being lost. Political parties are falling into the ease of pursuing ethnic, sectarian, and identity-based policies. The negative consequences of all this are reflected in social welfare, national unity, foreign policy, and defense and security. The fact that political parties are moving away from class-based, rights-oriented policies and do not prioritize production, development, and fair distribution is eroding these structures. 

When political parties, which have three fundamental duties—to diagnose the illnesses of the state and society and find solutions, to provide direction to society, and to educate and organize the public regarding politics—drift away from their purposes and effectively become corporations, politics ceases to be conducted for the sake of society. As a result of politics becoming a tool for the plunder of public resources and being conducted to get rich and create the wealthy, society's trust in politics is shaken. Therefore, solution models suitable for Turkey's structure, strength, capabilities, and goals cannot be developed, and policies for the efficient use of national resources and a mobilization for production cannot be produced. 

Therefore, Turkey must shatter its economic-political conventions. It must adopt socialist, public-oriented, populist, and statist policies.