Most literature on Ottoman socialism, past and present since the 1908 revolution, revolves around its failure if not outright absence. Moreover this claim is based on the assumed fact that the Ottoman Empire did not possess a proletariat hence it could not really give way to a proletarian ideology which was accepted as synonymous with socialism. So without such a class the so-called Ottoman socialists, went the charge, could not be anything more than adventurous and hence disastrous. The tone that can still be found in the literature was best answered by Hilmi himself back in the day, as he published much about workers and unionism in numerous journals that he himself established and managed, primarily Iştirak. His and others’ writings tackled three primary issues; defining and understanding socialism, attempting to adapt this theoretical framework to the Ottoman scene both in terms of the peasantry and the urban working classes as well as reporting on and supporting trade unionism across the cities of the region from Istanbul to Salonica. With this particularity, Hilmi’s socialist opposition to the CUP diverged from others that have so far been studied collectively. Moreover, through these publications we can look anew at the print movement of post-1908 revolution that has so far been dubbed as profiteering and print capitalism. Socialist publishing may then be viewed as a transgression from urban bourgeois culture of print capitalism. I may even suggest a universal tone of such transgression in these publications as they gave ample space to the news and biographies of world socialists and their movements, as well as translations. Besides the reports from abroad as far as the strikes in India, news of workers in Europe came next and not only for equating socialism with the movement of a proletariat but as discussions of socialism at large. Reports on Ottoman workers movements also followed clearly setting a different tone of anti-imperialism: For instance, the socialist view on the need to abolish the Régie was not just about the national economy argument of the CUP, but more about how the peasantry suffered through it. Such views also signaled a critical discussion of nationalism which was frequently identified as one of the problems that socialism was to solve. All of these clearly put Hilmi and his socialist publications beyond the contours of what a liberal opposition to the CUP would and did mean in the 1910s.